deedub81
Member Profile
Real Name: Dale
Birthdate: November 17th, 1981 (26 years old)
Bio:
Birthdate: November 17th, 1981 (26 years old)
Bio:
- Hmmm. Let's see... - 6'5" 240lbs -
Blue eyes -
Brown Hair -
Conservative -
Grew up on the Beach, moved to the mountains. -
Love playing Water Polo and Volleyball, riding Moto X, and spending time in the outdoors. - Yep. That should do it. -
Member Since: 2007-07-12
Favorite Sift: The Fog of War: 11 Lessons From The Life Of Robert McNamara
AIM: rasagedepres@aol.com
MSN: rasagedepres@hotmail.com
Last Power Points used: 2008-05-24 • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1
Favorite Sift: The Fog of War: 11 Lessons From The Life Of Robert McNamara
AIM: rasagedepres@aol.com
MSN: rasagedepres@hotmail.com
Last Power Points used: 2008-05-24 • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1
Comments
Subscribe
Asia Videos Submitted by deedub81Navigation
- profile
- unsifted videos (0)
- personal queue videos (10)
- sifted videos (60)
- promoted published vids
- promoted queued vids
- promoted Sift Talk posts
- promoted blog posts
- blog entries (0)
- Sift Talk posts
- discarded posts
- dead/deadpool videos (2)
- my playlist bookmarks
- my post bookmarks
- playlists bookmarked by others
- posts bookmarked by others
- voted up
- voted down
- playlists
Member Stats
Rank: 151
Rating:
65 star points
Votes Received: 1593
Votes Cast: 1590
Comments Posted: 864 • browse
Comments Applauded: 1
Sifted Videos: 60
Dead Pool Fixes: 4
Profile Views: 27942
Rating:
65 star pointsVotes Received: 1593
Votes Cast: 1590
Comments Posted: 864 • browse
Comments Applauded: 1
Sifted Videos: 60
Dead Pool Fixes: 4
Profile Views: 27942
Member's Highest Rated Videos
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
It sounds like you pulled that straight out of a Ron Paul speech.
But you're absolutely correct.
In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I wish neo-conservatism was more like conservatism. I don't know when the Republican Party changed, but they've strayed so far from their original small government, non-interventionist platform. They're like the nation-building spendthrifts of the Democratic Party but with a heavy heaping of religious arrogance thrown into the mix. I think the two parties just need to fuck and get it over with. Then we can just call that party the DemoPublican Party and we'll all continue to lose.
As for Obama's qualifications, I agree about his resume being thin, but we've had a lot of great Presidents with thin resumes. To be truthful, I think his argument that a President needs more judgment than experience is accurate as well. The President will always be availed with the best experts he can find on any subject matter -- his job is to listen to the advice and call the shot. In a sense, as long as the President is passably familiar with the issues at work (and Obama has shown that he's more than passably familiar with the issues we face), and has a record of good judgment (which I contend Obama has had), he can be effective.
I'm glad you're more moderate than most around here -- seems like we have a lot of market fundamentalists hanging out here. I also agree with what you're saying about needing to make government more efficient in how it uses the money. I think Bush has shown that the modern Republican party is trying to make government as inefficient and broken as they can, so more people lose faith in government and fall for the siren call of the "small government" Republican party. Democrats on the other hand want desperately to fix it, make it efficient and effective, in order to restore people's faith in government. They're not the Socialist party -- increasing the size of government is a means to an end, not an end in an of itself. If reducing the scope of government proves more effective, Democrats will go for it (think Clinton with capital gains tax cuts, and NAFTA). We just don't see reducing the scope of government as some sort of absolute necessity that shouldn't ever be questioned.
As far as taxes go, Obama's plan is primarily aimed at shifting the burden, but it does both increase the amount of expected tax revenue, while cutting some spending (Iraq war), and introducing new spending (healthcare). It includes a deficit, but a smaller one than McCain's (since he doesn't even come close to offsetting his tax cut with spending cuts).
I agree with you that corporate benefits can help regular people, I just think we've gotten to a point where we're doing too much corporate welfare, and not enough of the regular kind. I share your concern about cracking down too hard on oil companies, since the price of gas will likely increase, but I don't think there's anything wrong with giving them a big push towards helping find alternatives to oil, rather than new places to drill for oil. They're supposedly "energy" companies, after all.
I also think corporations have too much influence over government policy generally, and that the government shouldn't be run by people who equate corporate interest with common interest. There's certainly overlap, but common interest should be the priority when they diverge.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I don't think that anyone makes a conscious decision to be homeless. It's a consequence of their actions. The result of the sum of their decisions over a period of time landed them where they are today. Only 3% of homeless people in this country have mental disabilities, so it's not like they just one day woke up homeless. It's not that I don't feel compassion for somebody who has made mistakes and found themselves in a really bad spot. I do. But that's why I choose to give back in my donations. I believe we should be focusing more energy on prevention and education. If you've got a nail in your head, Vicodin will make it feel a little better -Or I could have provided you with a hardhat so that you didn't get that nail in the first place. Welfare is meant to be the hardhat but, over the years, it has evolved into the Vicodin. Now we've got to surgically removed the nails and pass out hardhats. I'll stop before I get too carried away.
I agree with you that wealthy people have different concerns than do poor people, but my point is that they aren't as far removed from the rest of us as you make them out to be. Again, I didn't vote for John McCain, nor do I want him to be our next President. That doesn't make Barack Obama qualified. If you present me with a rotten peach and a rotten apple, I'll tell you that neither of them is appetizing.
I don't believe in fundamental capitalism. I'm happy to pay taxes to fund roads and education and defense, among other things. All of those things are good. I just feel that this country already collects more than enough money from it's citizens. We need to concentrate our energy on being more efficient and effective, not on collecting more money from the rich or from anybody. Not adding new programs, but streamlining the programs that we already have in place. Does all the money collecting from the gas tax go to maintain our transportation infrastructure? It was supposed to. Speaking of roads, is our long term expenditure on our roads efficient? No. We focus too much on getting them done quickly on not enough on building them to last. We work over and over on the same problems when we could have done it right the first time for a little more money up front.
I also feel that those who have succeeded have a greater responsibility to support our common good. I just don't believe that they should be forced to shoulder the cost of the common good more than anybody else does.
When corporations receive monetary benefits resulting from legislation, it's not always a bad thing. It's always a bad thing when lawmakers make it harder for large corporations (don't get me started on military contractors like Lockheed. You and I will probably agree a lot on that issue). Too many people in this county have a negative attitude toward Exxon and other oil companies. I think we've done a VERY good job keeping fuel inexpensive. Even with all the recent price increases, fuel is still cheaper here than in most other countries, including Japan and the UK. As soon as you increase taxes on corporations like Exxon, or increase restrictions that cause their profits to be reduced, their responsibilities to their shareholders dictate that they must increase their margins. In other words, picking on big oil only hurts the lower and middle classes in this country. ...or picking on any big business for that matter.
You bring up a lot of good points. I think you just raised the sophistication of my attitude towards this discussion.
That's pretty high praise right there.
It's good to see someone else who's had a taste of both sides of life -- almost all the people I know have had all of one and none of the other.
I don't really disagree with you about people whose net worth is in the $1-$5 million range. They probably do live in middle-class neighborhoods, live in middle-class homes, and still shop in Wal-Mart.
Difference is, they're also not likely to lose their house, their car, or their credit rating if someone in their family gets a serious illness or loses their job (or God forbid, both), nor do they have to scrimp and save to put their 2.5 kids through college. They probably live in an area with a good public school, or can afford private school.
Their opportunities are greater, and their likelihood of slipping out of their situation due to a random event is dramatically less. They have income or savings to fall back on.
I agree that there are many countries with great programs funded by the government. I just wouldn't want to live there. I don't want to pay higher taxes. I want the freedom to spend my money how I see fit. Let me give you an example: I donate a substantial portion of my income to non-profit organizations every year, almost 12% in 2007. I hand picked where I wanted to donate based on my personal research and opinions. Some of my donations go to assist the poor. 100% of my donated money goes straight to where it's needed because it's handled by unpaid volunteers, not salaried government workers and politicians.
I don't pay very much for my health care because I don't need much. I maintain a policy for emergency health care, and I pay my doctor in cash when I get an ear ache.
Tell me how my lifestyle (and the life of the families that benefit from my donations) would improve if my money was paid in taxes rather than donations?
That's a core conservative argument. In your viewpoint, you earned your money in a vacuum, and owe nothing to anyone (except the people you borrowed money from). You want to donate some of your money, but you want it to be your sole choice where it goes.
In my viewpoint, you've used public roads all your life, benefited from the USDA keeping food safe, national parks, public schooling, the safety provided by police, the fire department, the FBI, the CIA, and the armed services. You will one day be a beneficiary of Social Security, and have been a beneficiary of farm subsidies if you've ever bought bread or milk.
We're all part of a collaborative enterprise here in America, and each of us have a duty to it. We're lucky in this country, all they expect us to do is pay taxes, and possibly serve on a jury. Nothing else is compulsory. In other countries, military service is mandatory for a certain period of time.
Now, you can complain that the government doesn't use your money wisely in all circumstances, but that's the fault of the voters. We have a responsibility to use our votes to force real accountability in government. If you want your tax money to go towards or away from something, vote your mind. If you're passionate about it, talk other people into seeing things as you do.
Arguments that "government" doesn't have the right to collect and disburse tax money strike me as essentially anti-democratic. While I like to have an open mind about such things, you're going to need a better replacement than "those who have, rule" if you want anything less than full opposition from me.
Even Lincoln said that we have a "government of the people, by the people, for the people", which to me implies that it is (or was) a collaborative effort for the common good. Once we establish that, we're just talking about who how to distribute the tax burden amongst the citizens. Should we ask the poor to pay the same portion of their income Bill Gates pays, or should we ask more from those who have more, and less from those who have less?
That's not punishing success, it's just saying that those who have succeeded have a greater responsibility to support our common good than those who haven't.
You're still free to give money to charity in addition to paying your share to the government, and if you don't have enough left over afterwards, you're free to go find ways to get more income. If higher tax rates are really a big disincentive, I'm sure your boss would be happy to give you a paycut if you asked for one, but I think most people will just try to keep earning more, no matter what.
Oh, and as for how Republicans are taking your money and giving it to corporations? By not lowering your taxes, while lowering your benefits, and increasing the benefits to Exxon, Pfizer, Bear Stearns, and Lockheed Martin.
To quickly touch on your other points, I think McCain's life was pretty cushy up to the point where he shipped off to Vietnam, and resumed the cushiness when he married Cindy Hensley. He was the son of 2 generations of Admirals, and graduated from officer's school, after his service he dumped his wife and married into money, and she funded his run for political office. That was 30 years ago. I think he's had himself a pretty sweet life for most of that, and I think that kind of situation detaches people from reality (and being a Senator for 30 years could have the same effect).
As for what that has to do with how he'd do the job? How's he going to relate to my needs, when he doesn't even know how many houses he owns, can't remember the last time he pumped gas, and needs note cards to tell him the price of milk? Yes, that's a talking point, but I think it makes a pretty salient point about the kind of detachment from reality McCain has.
Obama's the kind of middle-class millionaire you were describing. He's only recently made it to millionaire status, largely through sales of his books, and that largely based on his run for President.
I disagree that we've already done enough with social programs such that the only people who go homeless or hungry are doing so by choice. If that were true, why would people choose to go hungry and live on the streets?
Scandinavia is particularly highly ranked in schooling and health care statistics, and all of the countries involved use a mix publicly funded schooling (even at the university level), and a mix of nationally sponsored free healthcare, and privately available healthcare.
Only in their mix, they've made the public half so good that there's not a lot of demand for the private arms for each.
I strongly disagree with laziness being the only cause of homelessness. Many have mental health issues, or physical health issues...and government programs don't help as much as you're thinking, because no one's choosing to be poor or homeless.
"Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.
Don't Americans already have these things?
Some do. Some don't. I had great opportunities being born to a well-off family, and sent to private school. Most of my neighbors didn't have much opportunity, while many of my classmates wasted the opportunities that they'd been given.
I don't think there's any inherent superiority to people with money, nor inferiority (or laziness) in the poor. I buy my lunch from a deli across the street from where I work every day, and I guarantee you every one of those people work harder than I do. My education lets me earn more with less effort, and I see no reason why we couldn't make the same (or at least better) education available to everyone, because what I do isn't that much harder than making a sandwich (programming), it just takes longer to learn.
As for your comparisons, I get that it's part of your ideology to assume that all government programs suck, but in my opinion that's a self-fulfilling prophecy brought about by the conservatives who've wormed their way into government. Other countries make government solutions work, why can't we?
I don't know what's wrong with public schools, but the conservative argument that private schools have some magic power that public schools don't is simply silly. My private school was nice because a) they had a tremendous budget b) they had a high bar for acceptance, and c) only families with tons of resources could afford it, which all by themselves self-selects against having lots of kids from troubled homes, or mental/social disorders, underpaid/overworked teachers, and large classes.
In short, when you only let fairly gifted students in, it's going to have a better than average performance. I don't know what would happen if you pumped the same kind of money into an inner-city public school, but I imagine it would improve, but not to the degree where it could compete with my snooty upper-crust school.
As for saying the difference between rich/poor isn't a problem, how many top 1% income earners do you know personally? They're in a bubble, and most have no idea what life is like for the rest of us, because they were born to a life of privilege.
McCain was born into it to a certain degree (Dad and Grandad were both Admirals), and Cindy was born to it.
Obama wasn't. He had a decent enough situation, and his talent brought him good opportunities, but it wasn't like the life free of hardship the two McCains grew up in (and stayed in for the most part).
As someone with firsthand experience with the kind of people that grow out of a family with lots of money, I can say that their personal situation is very relevant to the kinds of policies they will try to enact.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I still don't understand how republicans are taking my money and giving it to corporations.
Communism is great on paper. It makes you feel all warm inside, doesn't it? If we want a smaller gap between the rich and the poor, we need not change our economy and government. We could move to Cuba or North Korea; I hear they're great places to live. None of those evil corporations.
The rich already pay a larger tax than the poor. They are already punished for their success. The poor already have numerous social programs available to them in this country. There are also thousands of private and religious, non-profit organizations. The problem with governmentally run social problems (taxing the rich to support the poor): when the government is left in charge of an organization, they don't work as well as they should.
As for messing with the tax code to win elections, you've got to have noticed that both parties do that, right? Hell, even Libertarians and Greens do that (when people notice they exist at all).
Both parties have also generally moved the tax plan in their advertised direction (if not always right away, or to the degree they originally promised). Republicans generally flatten taxes (mostly by reducing the high end), while Democrats widen the differences at each end (often by raising taxes at the high end).
Have you ever been to a DMV? Why isn't the USPS as fast as FedEx? Is Public Education getting better or worse? If money and/or time was no option, would you send your children to public, private, or home school to get them the best education available? Most Americans would say private, and yet they vote to give the government more money for social programs. Why? Because they spend our money so well?
The wealthiest 1% of the country donate millions to charities so that they can get tax breaks. I'm not saying they're saints, I'm well aware that they are just working the system. BUT - I'd rather have their money going into the private sector where those charities can fund research, give scholarships, and provide assistance to the poor and unfortunate more effectively and efficiently than the government does.
Nobody in this country should go hungry. Nobody should ever have to sleep with no roof over their head, or not have access to a college education. Thanks to the many federally and privately funded social programs they don't have to. ...unless they're lazy. In that case, what do we do? Support them for life on food stamps?
The gap between the rich and the poor in this country isn't the cause. It's the result. The result of poor education, low expectations, over-medication, and constant distractions. We could talk about taxes.... but they're fine where they are. When somebody promises to lower taxes here, and raise taxes there simply to get elected, I just shake my head.
Why don't we debate more substantial and longer term solutions? "Not being wealthy" isn't a disease. All people need is food, shelter, and opportunities.
Don't Americans already have these things?
Mostly I'm referring to McCain's plan to keep tax breaks for oil companies, and other corporate subsidies in place, while promising a shallower tax cut for the middle class than Obama, but a huge one for the top 1%, while Obama raises taxes in that range.
As for taking from the rich to give to the poor...not directly. I think the rich should be responsible for subsidizing better public education, universal healthcare, and unemployment protections, among other things.
What was it Karl Marx said, "from each according to ability, to each according to need"? I think a little of that is a good idea for everyone, rich included (not that they need help).
I think government programs should most benefit those who have the least, and find the revenue primarily from those who're producing the most.
I'm not in favor of some absolute socialist setup, but I think there needs to be a "compressing" pressure on income disparity, and in the last 8 years the Bush policies have been aimed at removing that pressure, and it's driven income disparity to near record highs in less than a decade.
I think there should be a bottom limit to how low we allow people to sink in terms of poverty. I think children born into poverty should have the opportunity to reach their full potential, despite whatever failings their parents had.
I think there's more than enough money in the country, and more than enough money passing through government to do all that, likely without even raising taxes a dime, just by shifting what we use government for.
I think tax cuts aimed at the rich are redistributionary -- in the wrong direction, and that supply-side economics in a nutshell is to say "in order to best help the poor, give more money to the rich" which is on its face insane, and only gets worse as the explanation goes on. It's a policy invented by the rich for the rich, of the rich. The "take more of my money, and give it to big corporations, because they'll spend it better than me!" is what I think 90% of the people voting for Republicans are unknowingly saying with their vote.
That's more than you asked for, and more than I originally intended to write, but I go on a tear sometimes.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Which corporations does McCain propose to give your money to after he takes it away?
Do you believe that the government should increase taxes on the wealthy and redistribute wealth to the poor?
P.S. Just so we're clear, I dislike McCain. I just like to focus on the facts instead of propagating straw man arguements.
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
^ It's a metaphor for the other problems with John McCain, such as thinking the economy is just fine, that tax cuts should be largely skewed to the highest income individuals, and that generally speaking we're better off than we were 8 years ago.
If we must boil everything down to money, shouldn't everyone vote for who will give them the biggest tax cut?
For 90% of the country, that's Obama.
A vote for McCain is to say "take more of my money, and give it to big corporations, because they'll spend it better than me!"
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
What is a bottel?
http://www.videosift.com/video/Secret-Stash-in-a-Full-Soda-Bottel
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I know. What business do I have correcting somebody else's grammar when I can't even be consistent with my capitalization in my proof reading notes.
Tsk.
In reply to this comment by Ryjkyj:
I can't help but notice that your first two bracketed comments aren't capitalized and yet the rest are. You fail.
>> ^deedub81:
Nice try. I'm sorry to inform you that your opinion does not matter because your comment has too many spelling and grammatical errors.
>> ^westy:
well [insert coma here] i see nothing wrong with nudity evan sex for kids to look at as its perfectly human and normal . but [began the sentence with a lower case "B" and a conjunction] if you [Insert "are"] going to make it [Poor sentence structure. Specify subject "it"] 18+ to see people having sex ore to look at porn then it folows that same should aply to art that depicts the same things, it [What is it?] only servs to highlight the obserdity of the law and how stupid hamans can be
[Long run-on sentence with improper punctuation]
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
http://www.vimeo.com/1423196
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
"Idiot rednecks have always bothered me. These are some of the exaggerated reasons why."
Huh? Why do they bother you? Because the people in this video have a sense of humor?
(edit: the above quote was from you in my member comments)
I'm an active Mormon and an RM. I'm not speaking out of any kind of ignorance. The video in question was obviously hateful and misleading - but the facts stated were usually either correct with current doctrine, or are at least supported by statements from past church leaders. Have you read Mormon Doctrine, "Answers to Gospel Questions" (by Joseph F Smith), or read much of Brigham Young's discourses?
I'm not exactly anti-Mormon (repeat: I'm an active Mormon), but there's more to the Church than they teach you in Sunday School - and some doctrinal issues are fairly complicated. If you have specific factual objections to the video, please feel free to post them, but I don't think it does anyone any good to say it's all lies when it's mostly true.
It's like the South Park Mormon episode. I had a lot of friends who complained about the stones in the hat. "That's not how it went!!!" they said. Well, yes, it was done like that sometimes. A lot of people were mad at South Park, when instead perhaps they should have been lamenting that they were learning about their religion from it.
At the end of the day all religions are creations of man, not the creation of God. Thus they are wrong. I too am being 100%.
There is no way anyone can convince anyone else that the Bible or any scripture is made by God.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
So, you agree with me that the only similarities have to do with flak from others.
Is that so much more different than the accounts of Moses claiming to part the Red Sea, or Noah building an arc? Why is it okay for some to claim to have received the word of God 2000 years ago, and not okay for them to say they received the word of God yesterday?
I'm being 100% serious.
In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
L. Ron Hubbard makes shit up about Xenu, DC-10s, thetans and all that good stuff.
Joseph Smith makes shit up about getting golden plates from an Angel. Oh and Jesus visited America, multiple gods and worlds. Oh by the way they also have modern prophets whose official statements become official canon.
I was relating them as two relatively modern belief systems with questionable origins. Not directly.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
What's questionable about Mormonism as it relates to Scientology? I fail to see any similarities, other than the amount of scrutiny the two receive.
Scientology has a known history of abuse, illegal activity, and motives for world domination, for lack of a better term.
Where are the parallels?
In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
You sound like a nice person whose trying to defend a religion that has questionable origins and backgrounds.
It's like Scientology. Also based on questionable facts, but am sure there are some nice folks who practice it.
I don't really understand what you mean by anti-Mormon propaganda, I would love if you could show me some sources.
Joseph Smith makes shit up about getting golden plates from an Angel. Oh and Jesus visited America, multiple gods and worlds. Oh by the way they also have modern prophets whose official statements become official canon.
I was relating them as two relatively modern belief systems with questionable origins. Not directly.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
What's questionable about Mormonism as it relates to Scientology? I fail to see any similarities, other than the amount of scrutiny the two receive.
Scientology has a known history of abuse, illegal activity, and motives for world domination, for lack of a better term.
Where are the parallels?
In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
You sound like a nice person whose trying to defend a religion that has questionable origins and backgrounds.
It's like Scientology. Also based on questionable facts, but am sure there are some nice folks who practice it.
I don't really understand what you mean by anti-Mormon propaganda, I would love if you could show me some sources.
I also really love this version for different reasons (because the backup singers are better and because it's live. And I like the tempo and especially the tempo changes for dramatic effect.):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLWMvecIoOY
...but I thought that the black and white Paul Robeson version is much more authentic, sincere, musical, and all-around awesome. And the solo vocals are better, obviously.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
This was the song I performed at my first vocal recital!
Watching Paul Robeson brings tears to my eyes. He's so good. You can just feel his emotions through the screen.
I've watched this 3 times now.
Can't you just hear me singing along with it now?
Love it. Good find, thepinky. *3
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You downvoted my comment on this video, and then you elaborated on the same point I was making.
?
In reply to this comment by jwray:
Alienation does not elicit the truthtelling. Unfalsifiable stories are easily fabricated. Torture does not work. A slow process of building rapport does work.