All that's missing is Grover as Vanilla Ice, sample-stealing the track.

>> ^quantumushroom:
the slew of new taxes from the obamateur's commiecare, already beginning to negatively the economy.


I honestly try to give you the benefit of the doubt, QM. Everytime I do it never surprises me that you spew a load of bullshit mixed with misconstrued and twisted facts. I decided to check out the website you linked in the quoted text and just realized it was another partisan website that uses talking points and political thinktank terms to push a certain point of view.

The website you linked to is run by the "Americans for Tax Reform", an advocacy group that lobbied against healthcare reform. Their president, Grover Glenn Norquist, who was involved in the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal is also on the board of directors for the American Conservative Union, the oldest conservative lobbying group in the nation.

Also, the website was designed by Brayard Group Inc., a one-man consulting company run by Matt Braynard, a conservative that has made political contributions to Republicans such as McCain and Romney.

Are you intentionally spouting these partisan views or is it just by accident that every post you've ever made that had to do with politics is based solely on biased sources?
>> ^quantumushroom:
Let people keep more of their own EARNED money and good things happen. Blindly give money to government and they urinate it away.


Do you realize that the government is actually a coalition of real people? You might as well have said this:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Let people keep more of their own EARNED money and good things happen. Blindly give money to people and they urinate it away.

Yeah, Blanky.

Baloon-Juice is one of the better political snark blogs out there. I know it's not your cuppa tea-party, and tends to have rational, logical, and truthful discussion about important issue, and they think Randian philosophy and Grover Norquist should be drowned in a bathtub. But it's really a good read.

>> ^blankfist:

Maybe you should read more of your "progressive" sites: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-s
heet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/

They're actually known as the "Firebaggers" btw. Most of the people who you call "progressives" dislike Jane Hamsher as much as they dislike Grover Norquist.

That's why smart people never read either of those sites.

Remember, it's FDL's own Jane Hamsher who teamed up with über right-wing motherfuckingasshole Grover Norquist recently, and froths at the mouth everytime she screams "WORSE THAN BUSH".

Hey, there's a fav version of Black Coffee for me done by K.D. Lang..here it is live with Grover Washington Jr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl4xrj_fksA

I upvote even though the Grover one was overly fu***.

>> ^blankfist:
^No. No. Absolutely not. That's my point. No collusion to create unfair legislation.


Except that Grover Norquist and his ilk are not going to stop influencing our politics, so unions have every right to be as political as they want to be.

If you talk about unions in any business here in America there is a 90% chance that you will be fired within the week.

The only way the working class is going to get ahead is by organizing.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'mike myers, verne troyer, scott, will smith parody' to 'mike myers, verne troyer, scott, will smith parody, bill withers, grover washington' - edited by rasch187

Straight from the horses mouth.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I certainly didn't expect this clip of all clips to spark meaningful debate, but okay, I'm game.

rgroom, citations for your health care numbers please. My quick research finds that even Cato and Heritage admit to a 2-3% overhead in Medicare administrative costs. Heritage gives a pretty reasonable explanation for why that number wouldn't hold up if everyone was covered under Medicare, but they only bump that estimate up to 6%. Cato claims the 2-3% comes from an institutional negligence towards fraud and abuse that government is covering up, which sounds less reasonable to me. Private insurance is more like 12% according to the last couple major studies done, and Heritage provides similar numbers (7-10% for PPO, 15% for HMO, which would probably average out to 12% overall).

That mouthful said, I don't think the only metric for what makes a good health care system is low administrative cots, and I'm pretty sure low administrative costs aren't the only thing we should be turning an eye to when talking about health care cost reduction.

As for the EPA, it's not saying a national EPA > state equivalents, just that it's worth the $27, despite the insane amount of griping about tax money going to it. I personally would argue that you're half right -- local, decentralized solutions to environmental issues are what we need, but we also need a national, if not global, set of standards we all are working to meet, otherwise polluters just migrate to the least environmentally strict areas. The catchphrase is "Think Globally, Act Locally" if you recall.


Psychologic, I mostly agree with what you said. My only two disagreements would be the idea that Democrats/progressives are "afraid" of shrinking government; we just think the conservatives' plan of "small government" shouldn't be treated as a goal in and of itself, because it didn't work out so well in the past.

Also, clearly, if you listened to Obama's speech, he wasn't calling for Federal government or nothing, he was saying Federal government should create a framework that encourages and empowers local governments, businesses, non-profits, and individuals to solve our problems. The progressive argument with regard to regulation is that there's an optimal level and shape for them that doesn't exist at the extreme ends of the scale. We'd love to have an opposition party that helped find a proper balance, rather than try to constantly tip the scale over.

The other side makes the argument that the optimal government is one that sticks to armies and courts and nothing more. This video is a response to those people who, like Grover Norquist, want to drown government in a bathtub.

Other, more moderate people, we welcome with open arms. And weed.

lol, i deleted the folder for that paper last week.
I'll look it up again.

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I certainly didn't expect this clip of all clips to spark meaningful debate, but okay, I'm game.

rgroom, citations for your health care numbers please. My quick research finds that even Cato and Heritage admit to a 2-3% overhead in Medicare administrative costs. Heritage gives a pretty reasonable explanation for why that number wouldn't hold up if everyone was covered under Medicare, but they only bump that estimate up to 6%. Cato claims the 2-3% comes from an institutional negligence towards fraud and abuse that government is covering up, which sounds less reasonable to me. Private insurance is more like 12% according to the last couple major studies done, and Heritage provides similar numbers (7-10% for PPO, 15% for HMO, which would probably average out to 12% overall).

That mouthful said, I don't think the only metric for what makes a good health care system is low administrative cots, and I'm pretty sure low administrative costs aren't the only thing we should be turning an eye to when talking about health care cost reduction.

As for the EPA, it's not saying a national EPA > state equivalents, just that it's worth the $27, despite the insane amount of griping about tax money going to it. I personally would argue that you're half right -- local, decentralized solutions to environmental issues are what we need, but we also need a national, if not global, set of standards we all are working to meet, otherwise polluters just migrate to the least environmentally strict areas. The catchphrase is "Think Globally, Act Locally" if you recall.


Psychologic, I mostly agree with what you said. My only two disagreements would be the idea that Democrats/progressives are "afraid" of shrinking government; we just think the conservatives' plan of "small government" shouldn't be treated as a goal in and of itself, because it didn't work out so well in the past.

Also, clearly, if you listened to Obama's speech, he wasn't calling for Federal government or nothing, he was saying Federal government should create a framework that encourages and empowers local governments, businesses, non-profits, and individuals to solve our problems. The progressive argument with regard to regulation is that there's an optimal level and shape for them that doesn't exist at the extreme ends of the scale. We'd love to have an opposition party that helped find a proper balance, rather than try to constantly tip the scale over.

The other side makes the argument that the optimal government is one that sticks to armies and courts and nothing more. This video is a response to those people who, like Grover Norquist, want to drown government in a bathtub.

Other, more moderate people, we welcome with open arms. And weed.

I certainly didn't expect this clip of all clips to spark meaningful debate, but okay, I'm game.

rgroom, citations for your health care numbers please. My quick research finds that even Cato and Heritage admit to a 2-3% overhead in Medicare administrative costs. Heritage gives a pretty reasonable explanation for why that number wouldn't hold up if everyone was covered under Medicare, but they only bump that estimate up to 6%. Cato claims the 2-3% comes from an institutional negligence towards fraud and abuse that government is covering up, which sounds less reasonable to me. Private insurance is more like 12% according to the last couple major studies done, and Heritage provides similar numbers (7-10% for PPO, 15% for HMO, which would probably average out to 12% overall).

That mouthful said, I don't think the only metric for what makes a good health care system is low administrative cots, and I'm pretty sure low administrative costs aren't the only thing we should be turning an eye to when talking about health care cost reduction.

As for the EPA, it's not saying a national EPA > state equivalents, just that it's worth the $27, despite the insane amount of griping about tax money going to it. I personally would argue that you're half right -- local, decentralized solutions to environmental issues are what we need, but we also need a national, if not global, set of standards we all are working to meet, otherwise polluters just migrate to the least environmentally strict areas. The catchphrase is "Think Globally, Act Locally" if you recall.


Psychologic, I mostly agree with what you said. My only two disagreements would be the idea that Democrats/progressives are "afraid" of shrinking government; we just think the conservatives' plan of "small government" shouldn't be treated as a goal in and of itself, because it didn't work out so well in the past.

Also, clearly, if you listened to Obama's speech, he wasn't calling for Federal government or nothing, he was saying Federal government should create a framework that encourages and empowers local governments, businesses, non-profits, and individuals to solve our problems. The progressive argument with regard to regulation is that there's an optimal level and shape for them that doesn't exist at the extreme ends of the scale. We'd love to have an opposition party that helped find a proper balance, rather than try to constantly tip the scale over.

The other side makes the argument that the optimal government is one that sticks to armies and courts and nothing more. This video is a response to those people who, like Grover Norquist, want to drown government in a bathtub.

Other, more moderate people, we welcome with open arms. And weed.

The monster at the end of the book was Grover not Elmo!

Quantummushroom,

by bringing health care nationalization into this discussing as reponse to my Franklin quote you have effectively labeled me as pro groverment intervention. This wholly incorrect and seems to indicate your lack of understanding of different points of view on the world (not everyone is either conservative or liberal). I am in fact a classical liberal in the mould of your founding fathers(libertarian in today's terms) meaning I am for small and responsible goverment that let's its citizens get on with their own matters as far as possible and does not involve itself with our lives. But the fact is this is not really part of the main discussion.

You can word it any which way you want, but the fact remains: You CANNOT lock people up indefinitely without trial and torture some and then try to worm your way out of responsibilities by claiming they're "illegal combatants" and by redefining torture. It is obscene and it is wrong, plain and simple.

Not shown: video of the things driving giant tripods and heading for Grover's Mill, New Jersey.