Why Obama needs to be the next President.
-
That would depend on the topic and quite honestly the time frame. Not sure why you are asking other than you are fishing to ridicule my sources. Bare in mind I made no claims in this thread. I only question 2 that you made. First you said Bush was a better president than Obama. I provided you a public source that shows Bush is ranked far worse of a president than Obama. Second you claimed Obama was not a US citizen, and for that I mocked you because it is well known that such a claim was bogus and an attempt to mud sling...
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
1. You made claims against my sources using your own biased sources. Hypocritical. If you can't answer, that's fine. There are no unbiased sources so I knew you would not be able to answer. No problem. 2. You source that indicates Bush is ranked far worse than Obama. So what? I said Bush was better and that is my opinion. I don't have to find an internet source to agree with me just so I can have an opinion. 3. Read what I wrote. I did not make that claim. And I used a source that was NOT Fox which should have made you happy. Understand that it is OK for people to have a different point of view and a different opinion than you. I don't have to have an article on the internet to have an opinion. I am sorry you do.
-
1. You made claims against my sources using your own biased sources. Hypocritical. If you can't answer, that's fine. There are no unbiased sources so I knew you would not be able to answer. No problem. 2. You source that indicates Bush is ranked far worse than Obama. So what? I said Bush was better and that is my opinion. I don't have to find an internet source to agree with me just so I can have an opinion. 3. Read what I wrote. I did not make that claim. And I used a source that was NOT Fox which should have made you happy. Understand that it is OK for people to have a different point of view and a different opinion than you. I don't have to have an article on the internet to have an opinion. I am sorry you do.
ryanb31 wrote:
1. You made claims against my sources using your own biased sources. Hypocritical. If you can't answer, that's fine. There are no unbiased sources so I knew you would not be able to answer. No problem.
So now you are claiming Wikipedia is biased? Not hypocritical. I sighted a source that pointed out public opinion on all presidents. Yes you can have an opinion. However your claim was that Obama is an Anti-American socialist. Back it up. Show what he did that is "Anti-American" and socialist in comparison to Bush.
ryanb31 wrote:
2. You source that indicates Bush is ranked far worse than Obama. So what? I said Bush was better and that is my opinion. I don't have to find an internet source to agree with me just so I can have an opinion.
See above. You can have an opinion. But that would be simply stating you liked Bush better. You however claimed Obama is anti american and state Bush was "better". That is not just opinion as it now has content that should be backed by resources. If you can't back it don't get ticked when people flame you for making such a stupid remark.
ryanb31 wrote:
3. Read what I wrote. I did not make that claim. And I used a source that was NOT Fox which should have made you happy.
You are right, not FOX. Just a compilation of mocked up clips made by sheeps hearded by FOX. Yeah, much better :rolleyes:
ryanb31 wrote:
Understand that it is OK for people to have a different point of view and a different opinion than you. I don't have to have an article on the internet to have an opinion. I am sorry you do.
You can have your own opinion. And remember this, you can keep it to yourself. If you do not you should expect people to question it espeacially in a diverse community such as CP. You started out arguing your claims and when you began to see that the video was a crock you changed your story. Its fine to back out of a discussion but do so with honor and admit it when you are wrong. And before you post you did not claim it was true again -->
ryanb31 wrote:
That's a youtube video of A LOT of different sources.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writ
-
ryanb31 wrote:
1. You made claims against my sources using your own biased sources. Hypocritical. If you can't answer, that's fine. There are no unbiased sources so I knew you would not be able to answer. No problem.
So now you are claiming Wikipedia is biased? Not hypocritical. I sighted a source that pointed out public opinion on all presidents. Yes you can have an opinion. However your claim was that Obama is an Anti-American socialist. Back it up. Show what he did that is "Anti-American" and socialist in comparison to Bush.
ryanb31 wrote:
2. You source that indicates Bush is ranked far worse than Obama. So what? I said Bush was better and that is my opinion. I don't have to find an internet source to agree with me just so I can have an opinion.
See above. You can have an opinion. But that would be simply stating you liked Bush better. You however claimed Obama is anti american and state Bush was "better". That is not just opinion as it now has content that should be backed by resources. If you can't back it don't get ticked when people flame you for making such a stupid remark.
ryanb31 wrote:
3. Read what I wrote. I did not make that claim. And I used a source that was NOT Fox which should have made you happy.
You are right, not FOX. Just a compilation of mocked up clips made by sheeps hearded by FOX. Yeah, much better :rolleyes:
ryanb31 wrote:
Understand that it is OK for people to have a different point of view and a different opinion than you. I don't have to have an article on the internet to have an opinion. I am sorry you do.
You can have your own opinion. And remember this, you can keep it to yourself. If you do not you should expect people to question it espeacially in a diverse community such as CP. You started out arguing your claims and when you began to see that the video was a crock you changed your story. Its fine to back out of a discussion but do so with honor and admit it when you are wrong. And before you post you did not claim it was true again -->
ryanb31 wrote:
That's a youtube video of A LOT of different sources.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writ
Of course Wikipedia is biased. Whoever authors an article does so based on their sources (which are biased) and their own beliefs. You can't get away from it. You are biased. We all are. Nothing wrong with that. Go back and read what I wrote vs. what you have written. I am not the one who is "ticked" here. So, now I have to keep my opinion to myself? But earlier I asked why you didn't go after Dave because all he did was share opinion and you made some excuse. I don't care if you come after me because of my opinion, just be civil about it. I am the one who pointed out the video was partially hacked so I did not change my story. You must be reading different posts and getting mine mixed up in your head because you really aren't making sense. But, what do you have against Fox? So what if they are biased? EVERY news source is. There is no way not to be. FOX TENDS to be more conservative so you must not be. THAT is why you do not like them. Because they are biased against your bias. Nothing more. You sure are silly you can't see how biased you are and everyone is. Get over it.
-
Since you do not understand global economics you will not understand what I was saying. You take this too personal and making many assumptions about me that are incorrect and unfounded.
You claim I do not understand economics with what reasoning? You are the one that posted it is Obama's fault that gas is high. Not I. I pointed out a basic known fact. Supply and demand set the pricing for any commodity. Supply of gas is always getting lower and demand is always getting higher. Logically one can deduce the price will continue to rise. You also claimed Obama did this with his "socialist" ways and yet I pointed out how their are candidates that want to run against him clearly using more socialist ways than he. I am not taking it personally. I am poking and prodding because you start with claims as facts, then when you are proven wrong you say it is opinion. And then when it is shown that you did not claim it as opinion but as fact you go on a uni-vote campaign. It is you who take it too personally
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
You claim I do not understand economics with what reasoning? You are the one that posted it is Obama's fault that gas is high. Not I. I pointed out a basic known fact. Supply and demand set the pricing for any commodity. Supply of gas is always getting lower and demand is always getting higher. Logically one can deduce the price will continue to rise. You also claimed Obama did this with his "socialist" ways and yet I pointed out how their are candidates that want to run against him clearly using more socialist ways than he. I am not taking it personally. I am poking and prodding because you start with claims as facts, then when you are proven wrong you say it is opinion. And then when it is shown that you did not claim it as opinion but as fact you go on a uni-vote campaign. It is you who take it too personally
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
1. Inflation. There is more to it than supply and demand. 2. So, you said earlier that some candidate claimed they can bring gas down to $2.50/gallon which I ignored because you were using that against me and I never said that. But now you bring it up again, so who said that? And how does that hurt what I said? Even if someone else is a socialist running against Obama that does not mean I was wrong about Obama being a socialist. 3. You have yet to "prove" anything I said wrong. 4. You again make ANOTHER claim against me that is incorrect. I am not uni-voting.
-
Of course Wikipedia is biased. Whoever authors an article does so based on their sources (which are biased) and their own beliefs. You can't get away from it. You are biased. We all are. Nothing wrong with that. Go back and read what I wrote vs. what you have written. I am not the one who is "ticked" here. So, now I have to keep my opinion to myself? But earlier I asked why you didn't go after Dave because all he did was share opinion and you made some excuse. I don't care if you come after me because of my opinion, just be civil about it. I am the one who pointed out the video was partially hacked so I did not change my story. You must be reading different posts and getting mine mixed up in your head because you really aren't making sense. But, what do you have against Fox? So what if they are biased? EVERY news source is. There is no way not to be. FOX TENDS to be more conservative so you must not be. THAT is why you do not like them. Because they are biased against your bias. Nothing more. You sure are silly you can't see how biased you are and everyone is. Get over it.
ryanb31 wrote:
Of course Wikipedia is biased. Whoever authors an article does so based on their sources (which are biased) and their own beliefs. You can't get away from it. You are biased. We all are. Nothing wrong with that.
Thats just your insanity bleeding through now. It is quite easy to have an unbiased source. They simply need to have no bennefit from any outcome of the material. Most often this is found in accedamia for they are only trying to educate. With that said, not all accedamia material is unbiased for some push their opinions etc. Have you ever written anything professionally? I am guessing no by such claims. If you look at any journals etc. they are written in a format as to ensure it is not biased. How so? 1. Scientific Methodology You must have a controlled condition. 2. Documentation is written from a third perspective This keeps your opinions out of the journal as you catch your self before entering it when not allowed to use first person conjecture. For example you state "Bush was better than Obama". The conjecture comes from your percpective so to be correct you would have to write "The writter believes Bush was better than Obama", OR you would have to write "It was concluded by the writer that Bush was better than Obama because ...." So tell me again how what I have posted is biased?
ryanb31 wrote:
So, now I have to keep my opinion to myself? But earlier I asked why you didn't go after Dave because all he did was share opinion and you made some excuse. I don't care if you come after me because of my opinion, just be civil about it.
Again you misread. I did not say you have to keep it to yourself. I said don't get upset when people critisize your opion espeacially in this community. If you want to express your opinion with out flame then you should find a community that matches your beliefs and you can bobble heads all day long.
ryanb31 wrote:
But, what do you have against Fox? So what if they are biased? EVERY news source is. There is no way not to be. FOX TENDS to be more conservative so you must not be. THAT is why you do not like them. Because they are biased against your bias. Nothing more. You sure are silly you can't see how biased you are and everyone is. Get over it.
Such assumptions and issues. My issue with FOX is that they claim to be unbiased but clearly
-
1. Inflation. There is more to it than supply and demand. 2. So, you said earlier that some candidate claimed they can bring gas down to $2.50/gallon which I ignored because you were using that against me and I never said that. But now you bring it up again, so who said that? And how does that hurt what I said? Even if someone else is a socialist running against Obama that does not mean I was wrong about Obama being a socialist. 3. You have yet to "prove" anything I said wrong. 4. You again make ANOTHER claim against me that is incorrect. I am not uni-voting.
-
It is Super Tuesday, and if Mitt Romney does manage to take a substantial lead, people of America need to question their vote. This is Mitt Romney, who lost to John McCain in the 2008 race. Not forgetting that John McCain was the man who lost to GWB in the 2000 campaign. You cannot vote into an office a man who was not good enough to beat the man who was not good enough to beat George W Bush!
--------------------------------- I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] English League Tables - Live
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Of course Wikipedia is biased. Whoever authors an article does so based on their sources (which are biased) and their own beliefs. You can't get away from it. You are biased. We all are. Nothing wrong with that.
Thats just your insanity bleeding through now. It is quite easy to have an unbiased source. They simply need to have no bennefit from any outcome of the material. Most often this is found in accedamia for they are only trying to educate. With that said, not all accedamia material is unbiased for some push their opinions etc. Have you ever written anything professionally? I am guessing no by such claims. If you look at any journals etc. they are written in a format as to ensure it is not biased. How so? 1. Scientific Methodology You must have a controlled condition. 2. Documentation is written from a third perspective This keeps your opinions out of the journal as you catch your self before entering it when not allowed to use first person conjecture. For example you state "Bush was better than Obama". The conjecture comes from your percpective so to be correct you would have to write "The writter believes Bush was better than Obama", OR you would have to write "It was concluded by the writer that Bush was better than Obama because ...." So tell me again how what I have posted is biased?
ryanb31 wrote:
So, now I have to keep my opinion to myself? But earlier I asked why you didn't go after Dave because all he did was share opinion and you made some excuse. I don't care if you come after me because of my opinion, just be civil about it.
Again you misread. I did not say you have to keep it to yourself. I said don't get upset when people critisize your opion espeacially in this community. If you want to express your opinion with out flame then you should find a community that matches your beliefs and you can bobble heads all day long.
ryanb31 wrote:
But, what do you have against Fox? So what if they are biased? EVERY news source is. There is no way not to be. FOX TENDS to be more conservative so you must not be. THAT is why you do not like them. Because they are biased against your bias. Nothing more. You sure are silly you can't see how biased you are and everyone is. Get over it.
Such assumptions and issues. My issue with FOX is that they claim to be unbiased but clearly
You over complicate everything. I know you will disagree with this, but another word for bias is preconception. So, even in your controlled environment of scientific methodology the scientists are still creating those controls based on preconceptions of the laws of physics. Scientists do not know everything and therefore cannot setup a 100% controlled environment for every test they do. Therefore, they are still biased in their assumptions. And if they are biased when trying to have a controlled environment, what can we conclude about news sources who aren't trying? I did make an assumption about where you stand because you are SO anti-FOX, it is hilarious. I had FOX personally offend me once but I don't care. I have a reason to hate FOX and you are the one fighting a campaign against them. Some girl who worked at FOX must have broken your heart. Poor guy. Or, if you love Obama and CNN then maybe it was some guy who broke your heart. :) I have had a lot of fun chasing you on your merry-go-round but I have to get some real work done now. You disagree with me. Fine, no problem. Who cares? You put forth your opinion trying to find internet bits to support you and I put forth my opinion. Now, who cares?
-
Nothing new or original? That's because anyone with half a brain has been making fun of that story for 100+ years
Your right, those with half a brain have been making fun of that story. Meanwhile, normal people who are sensitive to the Spirit have been joining the church and it continues to grow. Then again, if you do not believe in the Bible one would assume you believe everything was created from nothing. Now there is a story to make fun of.
-
You over complicate everything. I know you will disagree with this, but another word for bias is preconception. So, even in your controlled environment of scientific methodology the scientists are still creating those controls based on preconceptions of the laws of physics. Scientists do not know everything and therefore cannot setup a 100% controlled environment for every test they do. Therefore, they are still biased in their assumptions. And if they are biased when trying to have a controlled environment, what can we conclude about news sources who aren't trying? I did make an assumption about where you stand because you are SO anti-FOX, it is hilarious. I had FOX personally offend me once but I don't care. I have a reason to hate FOX and you are the one fighting a campaign against them. Some girl who worked at FOX must have broken your heart. Poor guy. Or, if you love Obama and CNN then maybe it was some guy who broke your heart. :) I have had a lot of fun chasing you on your merry-go-round but I have to get some real work done now. You disagree with me. Fine, no problem. Who cares? You put forth your opinion trying to find internet bits to support you and I put forth my opinion. Now, who cares?
I already said why I don't like fox. Yes people have pre-conceptions. That is why we use a control to ensure studies are not biased. That is why companies hire third parties to conduct surveys etc. You again assume I like Obama. Odd as I never said anything of the sort. In fact if you read my first response to you carefully you might catch a hint of a communist joke. But no matter. You took offence to your opinion being flamed. I again never actually expressed any opinion other than fox sucks and bush was a crappy president. From that you thought you could attack an opinion I never expressed. Quite amusing actually.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
Your right, those with half a brain have been making fun of that story. Meanwhile, normal people who are sensitive to the Spirit have been joining the church and it continues to grow. Then again, if you do not believe in the Bible one would assume you believe everything was created from nothing. Now there is a story to make fun of.
-
Your right, those with half a brain have been making fun of that story. Meanwhile, normal people who are sensitive to the Spirit have been joining the church and it continues to grow. Then again, if you do not believe in the Bible one would assume you believe everything was created from nothing. Now there is a story to make fun of.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Then again, if you do not believe in the Bible one would assume you believe everything was created from nothing.
Now why would anyone believe that?
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
-
Because most people I have talked to that don't believe in the Bible believe in big bang or other theories that can't explain where everything came from.
ryanb31 wrote:
Because most people I have talked to that don't believe in the Bible believe in big bang or other theories that can't explain where everything came from.
Theories are models that provide an explanation of observed processes in the material universe. They enable us to predict. Theories are constantly being tested, prediction versus observation. When its predictions do not match observations, a theory may be scrapped, or elaborated (e.g., Newton's 'universe' is a special case of Einstein's 'universe'). Therefore no true scientist 'believes' in any theory, but many believe in a god. Science is a methodology, it poses no threat to religion (except to contradict 'holy writ' on the nature of the material universe). It is not capable of proving or disproving the existence of gods.
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Because most people I have talked to that don't believe in the Bible believe in big bang or other theories that can't explain where everything came from.
Theories are models that provide an explanation of observed processes in the material universe. They enable us to predict. Theories are constantly being tested, prediction versus observation. When its predictions do not match observations, a theory may be scrapped, or elaborated (e.g., Newton's 'universe' is a special case of Einstein's 'universe'). Therefore no true scientist 'believes' in any theory, but many believe in a god. Science is a methodology, it poses no threat to religion (except to contradict 'holy writ' on the nature of the material universe). It is not capable of proving or disproving the existence of gods.
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon