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: 2008-10-11 • Available: 22 hours 45 minutes 10 seconds
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: 2008-10-11 • Available: 22 hours 45 minutes 10 seconds
Max Power Points: 1
Comments
Subscribe
Animation Videos Submitted by deedub81Navigation
- profile
- unsifted videos (2)
- personal queue videos (14)
- sifted videos (71)
- promoted published vids
- promoted queued vids
- promoted Sift Talk posts
- promoted blog posts
- blog entries (0)
- Sift Talk posts
- discarded posts
- dead/deadpool videos (0)
- my playlist bookmarks
- my post bookmarks
- playlists bookmarked by others
- posts bookmarked by others
- voted up
- voted down
- playlists
Member Stats
Rank: 143
Rating:
77 star points
Votes Received: 1901
Votes Cast: 1757
Comments Posted: 1050 • browse
Comments Applauded: 1
Sifted Videos: 71
Unsifted Vids: 2
Sift Talk Posts: 5
Quality Sift Talk Posts: 1
Dead Pool Fixes: 4
Profile Views: 31572
Rating:
77 star pointsVotes Received: 1901
Votes Cast: 1757
Comments Posted: 1050 • browse
Comments Applauded: 1
Sifted Videos: 71
Unsifted Vids: 2
Sift Talk Posts: 5
Quality Sift Talk Posts: 1
Dead Pool Fixes: 4
Profile Views: 31572
Member's Highest Rated Videos
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
These guys make it too easy.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Obamas-Misleading-Ad-on-Fuel-PricesLobbyists#comment-523477
http://www.videosift.com/video/Obamas-Sub-Prime-Fix-Feb-08#comment-520148
In reply to this comment by thepinky:
Yet another thing that pisses me off about Obama and the entire democratic party: Apparently they are extremely concerned about equality and fairness, but you get people like Nick (below) who say things like, "In Obama he wants to raise the tax to the top 10% and lower the tax for the rest. Mc Dogle here wants to raise the tax for everyone. So you want less tax for you then vote Obama." All for one and one for all? I don't think so. It sounds more like, "All for me and screw you, top 10%."
Why did you down-vote this? Was there something in it that was bias in any way?
http://www.videosift.com/video/Obamas-Misleading-Ad-on-Fuel-PricesLobbyists
Didn't even bother to watch it. In your mind, this proves that McCain is better than Obama so what's the fucking point?
You honest to god can not see what the Republicans have done to this country.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
McCain wants to raise the tax for everyone? I don't know where you're getting your information but it's wrong. McCain will lower taxes for everyone.
Obama will lower for some, raise for others.
In reply to this comment by nickreal03:
>> Obama would do an even worse job. Part of the reason the American economy
>> is on hold is knowing if Obamarx makes it in, people stand to lose even
>> more to taxation.
The taxation is the the problem. The problem is who you are taxing... In Obama he wants to raise the tax to the top 10% and lower the tax for the rest. Mc Dogle here wants to raise the tax for everyone. So you want less tax for you then vote Obama.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Hmm. My point wasn't to prove that he is fallible. My point was that he's not the smartest man on Earth. Uh, uh, uh, it was meant to be a little tongue in cheek.
Can't you see how an IQ test would hurt?
In reply to this comment by Januari:
First... you'll have to forgive me i'm new to this... Not really sure how this works...
Ok on that note... congrats on finding two clips where Obama makes an error?...
If that was your point?... you'll have to show me where i suggested that he was infallible...
I'm not sure if it's what your looking for but i have no intention of digging up foolish McCain videos... YOU were the one who stated they do a fine job of looking silly... and I am agreeing... whole heartily...
Your right an IQ test is certainly not any kind of indicator of leadership... but frankly how could it hurt?
I'll have to look at how long ago he started making that position clear, but it was at least as early as last June. Might have even predated his run for Senate.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Good points, but Obama wasn't saying these things all along. He's changed his story because he has come to the realization that he may not be able to follow through. If he had been saying "end this ill-conceived war that never should have been waged as long as it doesn't look like it will destabilize the region" when that's what all the other Dems were saying, I'd respect him for it. They were right. Now that he's beaten them and Gen Petraeus' strategy worked, he agrees. He had been saying from the beginning that he was gonna start troop withdrawals when he took office, period.
Correct me if I'm wrong, that's how I remember it. I don't have time to look into now (I'll check later).
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
Yeah, same issue with the control bar... no worky.
Still, some great clips, although some of them are woefully low res
**Still, great clips. Although, some of them are woefully low res.
In reply to this comment by spoco2:
That was friggen awesome.
And I totally agree, the English language is dum.
But it also irritates the living shite out of me when people can't spell or use punctuation properly.
(How hard is it to learn their/there/they're and your/you're ?)
Ok on that note... congrats on finding two clips where Obama makes an error?...
If that was your point?... you'll have to show me where i suggested that he was infallible...
I'm not sure if it's what your looking for but i have no intention of digging up foolish McCain videos... YOU were the one who stated they do a fine job of looking silly... and I am agreeing... whole heartily...
Your right an IQ test is certainly not any kind of indicator of leadership... but frankly how could it hurt?
I note that dailykos fails to mention which President signed the bill.
Personally, those mitigating factors just enhance what I've liked about him from the beginning -- nothing is black and white, nothing is beyond reconsideration. He makes clear his philosophy on foreign policy and economic policy. He's clear about the direction he wants to move in, but hesitates to make unconditional promises about specifics, because, well, it would be irresponsible to say "regardless of what's going on, we're leaving Iraq".
If he did, then you'd be telling me he's as unwavering, irresponsible, and reckless as Bush...and you'd be right.
I don't see that as lying or spin -- he's not keeping those mitigating statements quiet, and anytime someone asks him about it, he freely admits that nothing he's proposing is a fixed in stone "damn the consequences" sort of policy.
On the other hand, you have committments from McCain to cut taxes, and stay in Iraq until we win -- just don't ask when that victory will come, or what it means, or whether there's a certain point where the cost of victory is too high. Ask him about balancing the budget, and he promises to do that by 2013 too, even with tax cuts, just don't ask how that's possible.
Even if I agreed with McCain's economic and foreign policy ideologically, after seeing what Bush's absolutism did, I want someone who sees shades of grey and who is showing willingness to be flexible, rather than clinging to their ideology regardless of the situation.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I understand there is a place for attacks, I just want to change the world. 'Can't we all just get along?"
I'm just as guilty as the next guy.
I haven't decided who to vote for, but Obama is making it hard for me to commit to his side.
It's stuff like this that causes me to think twice.
"Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush's tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.
This statement tells us a lot about Obama. Is he admitting that it would hurt the economy to rescind the Bush tax cuts? It seems to me like he's whispering the truth about common sense after shouting out whatever he thinks people want to hear. Obama has been preaching the woes of the Bush Tax Cuts for as long as he's been running for President. He's just hedging his bets here. It's all about the polls!
Just like his stance on the Iraq war. During the debates against the other democratic presidential candidates he promised to start pulling troops out on day one!
After he all but sealed the party's nomination he changed his stance to not pulling out unless it makes sense.
Well, duh.
He is promising the world and yet he keeps his options open with talk like this. Isn't it a perfect example of wanting to have your cake and eat it too? Pure political pandering, if you ask me. Why can't he just give it to us straight?
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Hey, if you promise to vote Obama, you can call me anything you like.
Force of habit on the Phil Gramm swipe. I think that story is absolute gold for showing anyone who's paying attention just what kind of economic advisers McCain has surrounded himself with. But that's negative-campaigning kind've stuff, not an issues-based conversation.
I don't think all Democrats have been perfect, and I disagreed with Clinton on several of his deregulation moves. Usually I bitch about telecomm deregulation (it needed it, but he went too far), but the bill I accuse Phil Gramm of writing, Bill Clinton signed into law. Same with the Enron loophole; Phil Gramm wrote it, Bill Clinton signed it.
I hadn't heard that Clinton had eroded the standards on lending, but I doubt that was the main/only factor in the mortgage failures we're seeing now. I do think without the deregulation of Phil Gramm, companies wouldn't have been able to massively overextend themselves like this, and turn the U.S. mortgage problem into a global financial crisis.
As for where were the Democrats in 2004? Not the White House, in the minority of both chambers of Congress, and with little support in the Supreme Court.
As for Congress now, I think their 9% approval is well-earned. If I were polled on my approval of Congress, I'd say I disapprove -- ask me why and I'd say "because my party is caving". Ask the average Republican, and it's because they haven't been able to utterly silence Democrats. Ask the average Independent, and they'll say "because all they do is bicker, and nothing gets done".
I know I'm sappy about Obama, but he's very much trying to get politics back to the point where people like you and I have more opportunities to see balanced proposals passed, without everything turning into a mortal battle for supremacy between the two parties/ideologies.
Democrats, especially under Obama, are not absolutists -- we're just arguing from the position that some government meddling is necessary, and that there should be some equalizing pressure on the market (e.g. public education, progresive taxes, universal healthcare) keeping things from getting too lopsided.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Forget all these loser politicians! You and I should start our own country! CommonSenseville.
I'll be the King, you can be the Queen.
You're quick to point the finger at Phil Gramm. He's not without fault, but neither are many of the Democrats (including Papa Clinton).
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709
Take that with a grain of salt. I'm simply pointing out that this hasn't been a one-sided mistake. I agree with the "bit of fine tuning" that you talk about, but Clinton practically took away the ability of Fannie and Freddie to turn down "bad loans." It's not like he twisted their arm, but still.
I used to work as a loan officer in CA. Did so for 4 years starting in 2000 (right after the Clinton years). Even I saw it coming. I could fit almost anybody with a job a mortgage program that would get approved (and purchased on the secondary market). The other LO's and the Branch Managers would talk about how awesome Bill Clinton was for forcing the secondary market to buy riskier loans. We were all reaping the benefits (little did we know...). I'm no economist, but like I said, I started to realize that it wasn't headed in the right direction back in 2004.
Where were the democrats then?
http://politics.videosift.com/talk/The-OLD-Bush-Plan-for-Fannie-Mae-and-Freddie-Mac-Oversight
There is a reason that Congress has a 9% approval rating and it's not only the Republican's fault. The Dems have had the majority since the last election, remember?
I do want to let you know that I think you're mostly right about what the next step should be.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Man-Boobs
However, I think we're looking at more than a lull right now. The Democrats would prefer our actions be focused on putting money into the bottom of the economy, instead of the top, but I think that something needed to be done to bail out Fannie and Freddie at this point. I just don't think preserving the executives' bonus compensation packages should have been part of the deal.
I'd rather Phil Gramm and the Republicans hadn't deregulated the finance markets in the first place -- that's what opened the door for this kind of unchecked expansion into an area where no one was being honest about the risks.
Now those risks everyone denied or concealed are turning out to be real, and they're turning to the taxpayers to keep them solvent.
I think a modern-day leftie like me would say that so long as we had unemployment insurance for everyone, universal healthcare, and fair bankruptcy laws, we don't need to bail any company out -- let the downturn happen, and rely on the social safety net to keep people from starving or dying.
I also think that once it becomes clear what the root cause of the market failure was, we should add some regulation (as little as possible) to reduce the likelihood of a similar catastrophe from happening in the future.
I think the biggest misconception people have of Democrats is that they think we don't believe in the benefits of a free market -- we absolutely do -- we just think it needs a bit of fine tuning from time to time to keep it healthy.
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I do think the eonomy thrives when most things are left up to the market. The gov't doesn't need to pour money into the economy every time there is a lull.
About taxes, I'm not really worried about the guy making $600,000, but only winding up with $300,000 after taxes.
I'm very worried about people with less than $50,000, and moderately worried about people with less than $100,000.
Can you really justify asking more from people making $45,000/yr, in order to let the $600,000 income guy keep another $100,000 in taxes?
Republicans & supply siders always say "well, people with huge money hire people with their excess money"...well, so does the government, and while there's more than a little corruption, what's called corruption in government is often called "rewarding success" in the corporate world.
Past a certain point, people are just using their wealth for investments, and while there's an argument to be made about those investments helping the economy, the economy also just got saved by a government take over of Fannie & Freddie that puts the failures of these supposedly infallible investors on the backs of taxpayers.
I didn't benefit from the boom (I don't have real estate investments), why should I bear more of the burden from the bust?
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
You're absolutely right to criticize those who promise lower gas prices in exchange for leasing federal land to oil companies. It's a lie.
I don't agree with that large of an increase in tax on individuals earning more than $600,000. Their taxes would increase by more than $100,000 up to $700,000. That's a potential 19-24% increase from what is already the highest tax bracket. He's only proposing an additional cut, at the most, of $75 per month less than what McCain's tax plan is (that's only for one bracket). Whose plan is more fair in my opinion?
I believe that people earning below $30,000 should only have to pay a minimal tax, but I don't believe that others should have to pay 40-50% tax, regardless of how much they earn. It's just not right.