You gotta love Al Franken

As the kids say. Pwn3d!

Perfect Video to show when someone tries to argue; there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

Watching Laughing.

I think, regardless of who you are, having a smart, sexy woman behind you helps.

I also think it’s worth noting that Franken is pushing forward two good pieces of legislation. One would make it more difficult for defense contractors to avoid responsibility for the rape of their employees (if you can believe it, some in the Senate are opposed to it), and one involves giving people bigger tax breaks for college tuition. He’s a good man.

I saw this the other day, and I’ve seen it twice since then when showing it to other people. This clip, along with a clip of Franken discussing the Jamie Leigh Jones bill and question one of KBR’s attorneys are a huge, huge inspiration to see. He is very much the same man I used to listen to on Air America.

It’s that hard to figure out from the Video?

hmmmm?

Watching Laughing.

The woman being questioned is from the Hudson Institute.

The following is from Source Watch:

While describing itself as “non-partisan” and preferring to portray itself as independently “contrarian” rather than as a conservative think tank, the Hudson Institute gains financial support from many of the foundations and corporations that have bankrolled the conservative movement. The Capital Research Center, a conservative group that seeks to rank non-profits and documents their funding, allocates Hudson as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8 being “Free Market Right” and 1 “Radical Left.”

The Institute was founded in 1961 by the late Herman Kahn and his colleagues Max Singer and Oscar Ruebhausen from the RAND Corporation. Initially its policy focus, while right-wing, was dictated by Kahn’s own interests (such as domestic and military uses of nuclear power, the future of the US workplace, and the science of “futurology”). Following his death in 1983, the Institute expanded its staff and took on a more overtly conservative stance.

Hudson states in its 2002 annual report that its guiding principles continue “Kahn’s optimism about the future, his commitment to free markets and individual responsibility, his belief in the connection between the advance of technology and economic progress, a respect for the importance of religion and culture in human affairs, and his understanding that the prosperity and security of the United States are vital to the prosperity and security of the world.”

Hudson insists that its policy positions are not influenced by either its funding sources or ideology. “Whether in domestic policy, national security, or international events, the institute guards its intellectual integrity. Neither dollars nor ideology will sway our opinions. At Hudson Institute, we always strive for the betterment of our world,” Walter P. Stern and Herb London wrote in an introductory message in the think tanks 2002 annual report.

Boo yeah!

Sharing that on FB. Thanks.

Herman Kahn, founder of the Hudson Institute, argued that thermonuclear war was winnable and that the US should prepare to win such a war, even at the cost of billions of lives. Such values are at the core of the nutcase ideology espoused by the institute today. Bravo for Al Franken’s taking them down a peg.

“I think, regardless of who you are, having a smart, sexy woman behind you helps.”
Yes, Larry. And the more prominent the nose, the better. And the porn star glasses help give one that dirty, slutty, after school tutoring session look.

This is classic. I just read the paper that the lady from the Hudson Institute is referring to and have found that it is much referred to in arguments against universal health care. However, I really don’t think she read it very deeply since it very rightly points out the great differences between worldwide cancer classifications and the nature of cancer registries. Where European countries and Canada, to my knowledge, tally every cancer case, the American data relies on a number of cancer registries which are maintained by the big cancer hospitals and likely leave out people who do not possess adequate insurance to go to them. Nor does it fairly address the great inequalities in cancer incidence and survival among regions within the United States. I’m sure that we have great cancer care, but the paper does not convince me that ours is so superbly better than Europe’s. It’s apples and oranges when you are talking about 68% survival for breast cancer and 65%, especially when that 68% is just an estimate.

Plus the paper plainly puts Cuba ahead of us by a notch in terms of breast cancer survival rates. I don’t believe it, but it’s good for comedic bite backs.

“Plus the paper plainly puts Cuba ahead of us by a notch in terms of breast cancer survival rates. I don’t believe it, but it’s good for comedic bite backs.”

Well, I’m in a hurry today and can’t look for evidence for this comment at the moment, but I’ve long heard about Cuba’s medical system being quite stellar, took it to be credible information–not to mention the country’s impressive mandatory evacuation system used during hurricanes and other storms. Remember Cuba offering to help the US during Katrina? But US said no. Could have been such an instructive and, more important, healing opportunity, literally and symbolically.

Look at that hot stuck up slut in the porn star glasses. And who is that woman behind him?