Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^ShakeyMcBones:
The woman he's lecturing looks like Dustin Hoffman in drag.


You mean this?

>> ^Payback:
I am certain I would take Franken more seriously if every time he talked I wasn't distracted by the background.

dude, I'd like to invite her to my caucus

I'm fairly sure they're talking about people going bankrupt because they had to pay an arm and a leg to get medical treatment.

>> ^Quboid:
Is he not as guilty of cherry-picking as she is? No bankruptcies because of illness in Switzerland, France or Germany? Really? The health care might be free (I assume) but if you are a entrepreneur or run a solo business, I'd think bankruptcies happen. If your business doesn't operate for 6 months while you're in a coma, that business might just be screwed. If you're paying a mortgage with the money earned from this business, you're screwed.
Disclaimer: I don't really know what I'm talking about. I assume the argument is to do with free health care but I don't know. Also, I assume it's fairly general and doesn't mean just bankruptcies directly caused by paying for health care (and if it does, it's rather meaningless). Nothing in this clip makes these clear. I don't know what I'm talking about but then how many people do?

>> ^Quboid:
Is he not as guilty of cherry-picking as she is? No bankruptcies because of illness in Switzerland, France or Germany? Really? The health care might be free (I assume) but if you are a entrepreneur or run a solo business, I'd think bankruptcies happen. If your business doesn't operate for 6 months while you're in a coma, that business might just be screwed. If you're paying a mortgage with the money earned from this business, you're screwed.
Disclaimer: I don't really know what I'm talking about. I assume the argument is to do with free health care but I don't know. Also, I assume it's fairly general and doesn't mean just bankruptcies directly caused by paying for health care (and if it does, it's rather meaningless). Nothing in this clip makes these clear. I don't know what I'm talking about but then how many people do?


i don't think they are referring to patient's bankruptcies.

>> ^poolcleaner:
>> ^Payback:
I am certain I would take Franken more seriously if every time he talked I wasn't distracted by the background.

It is a requirement to have a hot woman sit behind Al Franken. If a hot lady is not available to sit behind Al Franken, Al Franken will NOT show up to senate meetings.


Dear GOD we found his Weakness!

>> ^Payback:
I am certain I would take Franken more seriously if every time he talked I wasn't distracted by the background.


It is a requirement to have a hot woman sit behind Al Franken. If a hot lady is not available to sit behind Al Franken, Al Franken will NOT show up to senate meetings.

>> ^Quboid:
Is he not as guilty of cherry-picking as she is? No bankruptcies because of illness in Switzerland, France or Germany? Really? The health care might be free (I assume) but if you are a entrepreneur or run a solo business, I'd think bankruptcies happen. If your business doesn't operate for 6 months while you're in a coma, that business might just be screwed. If you're paying a mortgage with the money earned from this business, you're screwed.
Disclaimer: I don't really know what I'm talking about. I assume the argument is to do with free health care but I don't know. Also, I assume it's fairly general and doesn't mean just bankruptcies directly caused by paying for health care (and if it does, it's rather meaningless). Nothing in this clip makes these clear. I don't know what I'm talking about but then how many people do?


I can assure you, that your disclaimer was correct, and the last sentence was also correct.. I think part of the problem in this American healthcare debate, is that politicians are talking about other countries like they know what's going on there, but they actually don't.. They are just pulling numbers, and missing the essence. Which is: people in western Europe have to be medically insured, if you are unable to pay for it, it will be paid by tax payers' money, because (wether you like it or not) some people can't really help being broke and some people actually need support and are not left on their own.. That's a not socialism, that's just social.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) humbles Hudson Institute dilettante, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^manfromx:
I think he looks like Lewis Black but sounds like The Joker. Sans murder sprees (I think).


Well, he's certainly murdering some people in there now..

I'm really beginning to get more and more pissed of at Penn. He asks us to think independently but then shoves down our throats two "experts" that contradict opinions as gospel truth.

Do a little research on the two institutions these two skeptics/"experts" represent.

1) Hudson Institute
The Hudson Institute is an American, conservative, non-profit think tank founded in 1961, in Croton-on-Hudson, New York, by futurist, military strategist, and systems theorist Herman Kahn and his colleagues at the RAND Corporation.

Companies such as Eli Lilly, Monsanto, and DuPont fund this place. And YES, they are tied in DEEPLY with BIG AGRICULTURE!!!

2) Reason Magazine
Reason is a libertarian monthly magazine from the Reason Foundation.

Reason was founded in 1968 by Lanny Friedlander as a more-or-less monthly mimeographed publication. In 1970 it was purchased by Robert W. Poole, Manuel S. Klausner, and Tibor R. Machan, who set it on a more regular publishing schedule. As the monthly print magazine of "free minds and free markets", it covers politics, culture, and ideas with a mix of news, analysis, commentary, and reviews.

Key phrase above: FREE MARKETS

People, think for yourselves, even while listening to the very Libertarian Penn Jillette. It doesn't take long to look up some information on your own to find out who's trying to do the real spinning.

If you come to the same conclusions as he does, then great, but don't let him brainwash you the same way he believes the organic farms are brainwashing everyone else.

Me? I actually grow my own food and purchase what I can't grow at a local farm in a valley nearby where they use organic methods to grow their food. I know where the source of the majority of my food comes from; and that's my favorite part of it - knowledge of the source.

is it my turn to toss in?
good.
lets take mr walters point by point.
1.he is from the hudson institute-(neo-con think tank)deduct 50 points right there.
2.taxable income questionable?ok,i agree here.there is no actual data as of yet.
3.weed is the number ONE reason for drug treatment.
what?where is the former drug czar getting his numbers?
the number ONE abused and treated addictive drug is legal prescription painkillers.even if we used illegal drugs, pot is fourth.(data from A.M.A)
4.weed is responsible for violence and deaths among dealers.
no..its creating a black market that leads to violence and deaths.
its not like a drug dealer can go to the authorities and bitch about another dealer creeping into his turf.this is just bad logic.you can apply the same sentence and just add:coke dealers,pimps,gambling,fights...
when you create a black market,the only way those who RUN that black market can protect their investment is usually through violence,which may lead to deaths,sometimes innocent.
5.mr walters keeps using the term "drugs".
while not wrong,its not entirely accurate."drugs" is an umbrella term which includes ALL drugs i.e :coke,meth,x,heroin etc.
to conflate these very dissimilar narcotics is dishonest and misleading.
6.again mr walters conflates "drugs" with violent behavior.
"many of the arrests found weed on the person"
and?using circular logic to make a point is still circular logic.
so if i got arrested with a playboy in my possesion that would mean im a sexual deviant?thats just weak.
6.marijuana dependency?
first off,doesnt exist.at least not in the way mr walters is portraying it.
THC is fat soluble,which means it takes at LEAST 3 weeks for HALF the THC to leave your body.you have to smoke a tremendous amount,consistently for a very long time to feel any adverse affects if you stop smoking.even then the effects are mild.
7.0.3% is the population percentage in jail for possesion of weed..
thats an outright lie.
that figure is way higher,some as low as 20% and as high as 65%(couldnt get a solid number)but considering that private jails are now the number 9th largest lobby,and are the biggest funders of keeping weed illegal.
well..you tell me what that looks like.
8.more conflation about number of people who use "drugs".
the fact is,a certain amount of the population will use drugs.
its predictable and steady.this number coincides with weed smokers.
i believe the number is 23%,but im not sure and forgot the studies name.
but its around there.

one final note.
some have mentioned it here already,and i totally agree.
if you do something in your own home,harm noone,not even yourself.
how can it be deemed illegal?
even the constitution backs up the dissilution of this ill-thought,inane,archaic and totally useless law.
the man who demonized weed was a man named henry anslinger.
who used the "demon weed" for political purposes,and he did a damn fine job of it.
that was in the late 30's and early 40's.
time to huck this piece of irrelevant legislation out the door.
thank you..and good night.