bamdrew
Member Profile
Bio:
(on hiatus from the sift)
Member Since: 2006-05-22
Last Power Points used: 2008-07-03 • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1
Last Power Points used: 2008-07-03 • Available: now
Max Power Points: 1
Comments
Subscribe
Sports Videos Submitted by bamdrewNavigation
- profile
- unsifted videos (0)
- personal queue videos (17)
- sifted videos (93)
- promoted published vids
- promoted queued vids
- promoted Sift Talk posts
- promoted blog posts
- blog entries (0)
- Sift Talk posts
- discarded posts
- dead/deadpool videos (14)
- my playlist bookmarks
- my post bookmarks
- playlists bookmarked by others
- posts bookmarked by others
- voted up
- voted down
- playlists
Member Stats
Member's Highest Rated Videos
In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
they're dead, Jim, they're all *dead
In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Larry Flynt wrote a wonderful, heartfelt opinion piece upon the death of his... friend,... Jerry Falwell.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-flynt20may20,0,2751741.story?coll=la-home-commentary
... a highlight, summing up his Supreme Court victory over Falwell;
'The justices held that a parody of a public figure was protected under the 1st Amendment even if it was outrageous, even if it was "doubtless gross and repugnant," as they put it, and even if it was designed to inflict emotional distress. In a unanimous decision — written by, of all people, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist — the court reasoned that if it supported Falwell's lower-court victory, no one would ever have to prove something was false and libelous to win a judgment. All anyone would have to prove is that "he upset me" or "she made me feel bad." The lawsuits would be endless, and that would be the end of free speech.'
I also recall a Larry Flint interview where he noted that part of his late-life friendship with Jerry Falwell was driven by Jerry's appreciation of having someone who didn't agree with him, and wouldn't just tell him what he wanted to hear.
The Individual is the most important figure in a free society. The Individual has rights that are inherited simply by being human (or bestowed by a Creator if you choose to worship one).
The State has no rights, only powers, which are strictly limited by the Constitution. The State exists to protect our rights and the rights of our neighbors and ensure, as best it can, equality of opportunity and justice for all. The State governs with the consent of the People; when it fails, we reserve the right to throw it out and start over.
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." --Thomas Jefferson
In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
I guess I can put this in *science, now that I've dragged some nerdy language out on the comment board,
I feel like I'm trying to choose the lesser of two evils this election season. But my biggest issue with Obama is his double talk, I have no idea what he's going to do because he talks out of both sides of his mouth. He needs to find his issues and stick to them.
In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Confession; my car has one bumper sticker on it, and its Obama'08.
He's a smart man. There's a small possibility he could become a Nixon, but a much greater chance he'll work to get congress to bullshit around just a little less.
In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
Thanks for the article, it was a good read. I really hope the American public can see how unstable he is before November.
In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html?em&ex=1214107200&en=98dbf7f8bae1fe38&ei=5087%0A
In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
He advocates energy independence but pretends this can occur without more domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.
Of course maybe that's the defining mark of a true politician, being able to speak to one side while the other hears a different message.
In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
I don't... girlfriend is allergic
In reply to this comment by Obsidianfire:
I've seen it on a daily basis. I have a cat.
In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
I'd never before seen a vertebrate animal's eyes adjust with attention and excitement so intensely. All the muscles throughout the cats body load up in preparation for the kill, including the eyes. As a biology and physiology buff I thought it was rather remarkable. Anyhow... I guess the large hadron collider should be pretty cool, too... eventually...
In reply to this comment by Obsidianfire:
I downvoted on your cat videos because the sift is already overflowing with them. It's clogging up the rest of the sift. This is Videosift not Videocat. I'm just tired of seeing it. It's an easy way to make a top 15 and I think that's sad when we have other videos on here talking about Large Hadron Colliders and studies about how and why we sleep. You know, intelligent things. I don't like that the videos that let people think aren't getting very many votes and the videos that dumb people down are getting a ton. It's my opinion, so I downvote. That's the point of downvoting. If it were out of spite, I'd be downvoting ALL videos wouldn't I? It's nothing against you, and I know how it feels to have your video downvoted, but I've just had enough of it. So I'm being less passive and more aggressive. I do have the right to do that here, that's the point of the sift. If people don't agree then so be it. But that's what I feel and I'm not going with the crowd here.
http://www.videosift.com/faq-en.php#voting
>> ^legacy0100:
>> ^Obsidianfire:
5 minutes of a cat sitting in a corner "wary?" No more damn cat videos!
^I respect people's different opinions and taste. But I think ObsidianFire is downvoting my recent cat videos just out of spite. You've got problems with cat videos being sifted here? Alright then, nothing I can do about that. But that's still YOUR problem.
If you didn't want to see cat videos, don't watch it. It's clearly labeled 'catsanddogs', thumbnail has cat images on it, and the title & tags clearly say the word 'CAT'. Why watch something you know you're not gonna enjoy and bitch about it later? Whose fault is that?
In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html?em&ex=1214107200&en=98dbf7f8bae1fe38&ei=5087%0A
In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
He advocates energy independence but pretends this can occur without more domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.
Of course maybe that's the defining mark of a true politician, being able to speak to one side while the other hears a different message.
In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
this whole side plot, with the corresponding motorcycle chase-scene,and the later chase-scene where they're wrecking the clinic trying to find him, are probably my favorite parts of this ridiculous movie.
*nsfw
Divide and conquer. "That's right, we're only going after gun show people." (Next year) "Don't worry rifle owners/hunters, we're only going after handguns." And so on.
During Katrina, armed "good guys" arrived at less-damaged homes and confiscated all firearms from private citizens without any lawful reason. While some years are more intense than others, there will never be a time to relax vigilance on this issue.
The easiest thing, unfortunately, is to try to place restrictions on who can buy guns, who can buy ammo, what kinds of guns can be sold, etc.
All the 50.000 gun laws we have on the books now do is keep honest people honest, make it harder for them to defend themselves and, of course, squeeze a few dollars more out of them via licensing. The criminals, obviously, don't care about gun control laws.
I did look at the Barack firearms page. There's nothing there that he can do that hasn't already been tried or isn't being done. Very little of it has an impact, and even if Barack put a personalized stamp on each idea, no one could reasonably hold any single politician accountable for such vague, general measures.
2. Oh Jesus, capital gains tax... are we talking long-term capital gains? 5% is less than 20%? ... my ears are open as to how that works. Keep in mind I don't listen to O'Reilly or Limbaugh.
Lower taxes = higher government revenue, as in revenue for your government funding, etc. Whether it comes from Limbaugh or Franken, a fact is a fact. Raising taxes as a way to demonstrably "punish the rich" satisfies the so-called little guys' illusions while hurting them all the more. "You may lose a hand, but we're going to make those evil rich people lose an arm!" (No, I'm not wealthy, but I don't want to drive wealthy people away with higher taxes and more regulations).
.3. Heh, lol on this one. At least you didn't say the ex-Marine was anti-American.
Lee Harvey Oswald was also an ex-Marine. We needn't go there.
Wright remains a crank. Barack took too long to disassociate himself, and even if he hadn't, he's been aligned with Wright's political church for 20+ years.
We can agree on this: Obama's supporters are willing to overlook anything they find wrong with Wright, and to his non-supporters, there's no positive angle to the Obama/Wright association.
Not to cut this short, but our differences are philosophical about the purpose of government:
You're a scientist in a field that either earns most of its bread from government funding (or has limited opportunities in the private sector). Concurrent with that, you see government as a tool to balance natural inequities in economics and social dynamics. Were I you, I'd vote for Obama or Hillary.
Generally, I view government as a water-stream of good intentions sprayed onto an oil fire of problemos. I believe in what Patrick Moynihan called, "Benign neglect", letting natural consequences and the free market shape society. Government is at its best when enforcing the few laws that make sense, and killing barbarians at the gate. But on its best day, it's still nothing more than raw force, a good servant but terrible master.
Every time the government is given power, it's power we the people never get back again. Therefore I'm wary.
Who knows how McLame (or McShamnesty or McNasty, take your pick) might 'lead' as President, but even at his most liberal he won't be as liberal as O-bam or Hillary. That might not bring you much comfort, but odds are you'll have your funding and employment regardless of who makes it in. Although the mainstream media denies it, Bush is a liberal about everything but Iraq.
For fun: if I had to choose only between Barack and Hillary, I'd choose Barack.
In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
1. Gun Grabber? Are you a member of a well regulated militia? Do you have guns at home for personal home defense or recreation? Then you're fine. Is trading foreign-made assault rifles at gun shows or concealing pistols something you enjoy?....
1. Gun grabber. Any government official who thinks the people cannot be trusted with a firearms cannot be trusted with government power. I'm appalled a Constitutional lawyer wouldn't recognize the 2nd Amendment.
2. Anti-capitalist. When explained point blank that lowering/keeping capital gains tax low brings more revenue to government, he dismissed it outright.
3. Close alliance with anti-Semitic, anti-White pastor and former Weathermen terrorists. Yes, you will be judged by the company you keep.
4. the lack of experience he brings to the job
Doesn't have a distinguished record (could be argued he's too new) and the guy can't even go one-on-one in a debate with Hillary...how is he supposed to deal with nutjobs like Ahmadinejad? Will not reveal his plans for the military, budgetary or otherwise.
5. Gives good speeches that fall short on substance and specifics. The "impartial" mainstream media has let this guy have a free pass and will continue to do so. Also, he seems to take offense when pressured to answer difficult or unpopular questions. That's the opposite of transparency.
I don't think socialized medicine is a good idea, but for those who do, what specifics has he laid out already to achieve his stated goals?
I wouldn't think you'd be incredibly supportive of McCain as candidate, are you? I thought McCain would be okay until his last year and a half of pandering, dumbing down his message and watering down his ideals to get the anti-liberal side of the conservative party onboard.
No, I'm not supportive of McLame, and the proof is, the only way I'd vote for him is if the other guys ran Barack or Hillary against him.
I know why Barack is popular, he appeals to the imagination and engages emotions (just like religion does). But from my POV, the people looking to him for salvation are reacting to a (not) surprisingly false and negative presentation of reality, courtesy of the monolithic media (no, not Fox).
In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Basics of why I'm voting for Barack Obama.
1. he's an grounded idealist; identifies goals and outlines realistic paths to achieving them in the ridiculous environment of Washington D.C.
-(maximize transparency in federal government! have all parties (including health care providers) involved while moving in stages to universal healthcare! get out of Iraq by pressuring their government to make hard decisions! increase community service with college scholarships! etc.)
2. the experience he brings to the job
-(Constitutional Law professor from a middle-lower class family, raised by single mom and grandparents, attracted to community service literally through the joy of helping others, history of reaching across the aisle and not only respecting but understanding opposing views, etc.)
3. is not a "good" politician; refuses to bullshit for votes
-(treats American citizens like intelligent people, doesn't change his message to suit the audience, directly challenges parties to understand one another and find compromise, etc.etc.etc.)
I wouldn't think you'd be incredibly supportive of McCain as candidate, are you? I thought McCain would be okay until his last year and a half of pandering, dumbing down his message and watering down his ideals to get the anti-liberal side of the conservative party onboard.
Actually I still think Obama as Pres/McCain as Vice would be cool, as long as nothing happened to Obama.
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
America can take all the criticism dopes like Dan can churn out and a whole lot more. It's just when these empty shirts (or in this case, hoodies) are called on their bullsh*t by presentations of facts, they backpedal while throwing out the same old, same old: "America bad. Life unfair. Racism."
How about some new material? This poor-me victim crap is plenty stale. Last time I checked, Whites were paying the same $4-a-gallon for gas as everyone else.
Nowhere on earth have Whites done so much for a Black minority than America, spending over a trillion dollars in 50 years on what amounts to 13% of the population. How about a little gratitude? Just a little? They're still practicing slavery in North Africa and tribes (Hutus/Tutsis) are still pointlessly killing each other over there; any White colonial remnants left decades ago, can't blame them.
Voting for Obama and his odious doof of a pastor? As long as you're not doing so out of White guilt or Black entitlement...and if not those what do you got? O-Bam's "principles" are socialist, ultra-left-wing to the left of Ted Stumblebum Kennedy. There's nothing else there in the way of plans or leadership, except to raise taxes. I don't think I'm being unfair here, if you know something I don't about Obama's experience and quals, do tell.
The White House is the absolute last reward anyone should receive for having a victim mentality.
In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
no prob. do you do this a lot?
In reply to this comment by mas8705:
I just checked your sift list and saw that 13 videos weren’t working anymore… sorry…
My response at that sift:
I have to be careful whom I praise, it can be bad for their rep, but bamdrew has done an exemplary job in this sift explaining another facet of this debate, and many other responses were excellent as well.
In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
hey guy, i wrote something of a reply that i'd like your opinion on.
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
What are you referring to in this comment, out of curiosity? I know they have problems with criminal gangs that prey on non-Mexican citizens at the Guatemalan border, but other than that I thought it was about as porous a border as ours with Mexico.
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
US should be guarding its Southern border like Mexico guards its southern border.