Ohhhh SNAP!

Sorry, I'm stuck in a loop of early 90's catchphrases and jargon. It's a problem.

Maybe I should make a t-shirt about it!

>> ^onionradish:
The catchphrase "Who's Yehoodi?" popular in the 1930s and 1940s was inspired by Menuhin's guest appearance on a radio show, where Jerry Colonna turned "Yehoodi" into a widely recognized slang term for a mysteriously absent person. It eventually lost all of its original connection with Menuhin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehudi_Menuhin


Wow, and here I thought it was the precursor to Yahoo.

The catchphrase "Who's Yehoodi?" popular in the 1930s and 1940s was inspired by Menuhin's guest appearance on a radio show, where Jerry Colonna turned "Yehoodi" into a widely recognized slang term for a mysteriously absent person. It eventually lost all of its original connection with Menuhin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehudi_Menuhin

When Alito went through this process, did these senators blurt out Don Corlione or Fonzie catchphrases? No, that would have been unprofessional and inappropriate.

It's derogatory because a Supreme Court nominee has to be subjected to low brow ethnic humor that was itself unnecessary, a non sequitur.

It doesn't hurt her--I'm sure she is used to it-- it just demonstrates how these senators can't think outside of their racialized boxes.

Its like listening to the Mainframe Cylon from BSG, like a stream of consciousness blabbering out cheap political catchphrases and failed metaphors. Amazing.

This was the programme that we all watched in our rooms when we were around 10 with the sound turned right down and sat five inches away from it so our parents couldn't hear it. The catchphrases were endless. Great find

This just shows how easy it is to be an unthinking conservative, repeating catchphrases, stating conservative wisdom points. As if a 14 year old could make an informed parallel between Obama and Carter, not having lived through... well, anything.

This is silly.

I don't remember saying that you're sister is responsible for losing her 401k. The consequences of the current financial crisis are obviously gonna affect people who haven't done anything wrong, I just assumed that was common knowledge.

Ok, enough "catchphrases", how about a statistic?

"The most recent Federal Reserve study showed that 43% of U.S. families spent more than they earned. On average, Americans spend $1.22 for each dollar they earn."

If you don't see how that's gonna come back to bite you in the ass then you're beyond saving, sorry. That statistic is probably a little dated, but I bet it has only gotten worse.

I don't doubt that there are smart americans on this site. I'm not saying that the average American is an idiot. I know quite alot of Americans personally, and very few of them are idiots. What I am saying is that in light of this crisis, people should examine the lifestyle they're living and the choices they're making. For 43% of Americans this is something that has to be done. However, I'm not making any excuses for the CEOs or politicians, I'm just saying that the Average Joe isn't neccessarily innocent either.

>> ^volumptuous:
Obviously if you think the American public is who's to blame for the ponzi schemes, 30-to-1 Hedge's and sub-prime CF, you know nothing about economics or Wall Street regulation.
How is it my sister's fault that she and her husband just lost their entire 401ks? Is it because of her bigscreen (10 yr old, 22") TV, or her fancy (2 bdrm falling apart) House? It must be because she's an idiot right? It's definitely not because of that "scary corporation" called GM who they've worked for the last 20+ years.
Your catch phrases of "big screen TVs" and "two cars" shows you have little grasp of what has happened and what's been happening. Then you toss on the go-to of how Americans are stupid. Nice one.
It seems the one who's getting all of his information from the teevee is you.
And I have yet to see anyone say John Stewart should run for president. This straw man is so transparent it makes my head spin.

And btw: I'm sure most of the sifter-yanks here are very smart people. The one's that I've personally met certainly are. So you're really talking to the wrong crew.

suprised... it's a maury episode that does not include DNA test to determine who the biological father is. "The Maury Show often revolves around a mother trying to prove or disprove her child's parentage through paternity tests. In fact, Maury popularized the catchphrase 'you are NOT the father' as the preferred method of revealing negative DNA results of paternity tests." [wikipedia]

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.

Holy sidekick catchphrase, Batman!

THERE'S NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT! - added to my catchphrase pile.

Shame that Hovind will never watch this video, comment on it, or learn why he is mistaken. This is because he doesn't care that he is mistaken, he's just looking for quotes from genuine scientists that he can take out of context and use to further his anti-science agenda.

"I have no need for you, and I am going to leave with my homosexual friends" is my new catchphrase.

Homosexual Group Masturbation Games? Yeah, he WISHES!