Why Obama needs to be the next President.
-
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
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Thanks for the lesson. Care to explain your point?
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.
no true scientist 'believes' in any theory
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
-
Yeah, odd how gas can change like the market. The station buys it at (hypothetical) 2.00 a gallon. When they say gas is up, they still sell it at a higher rate. Then they make 3.50 a gallon off the same stuff they were selling at 2.00 a minute ago. Makes no sense to me. I remember two things. First, when 911 hit they got fined for price gouging. Second, when I was in Oklahoma the gas was steadily rising. When it hit $2.50 a gallon the first time people quit their jobs to find work closer, moved, dropped out of school ,etc.. It was back down in the first week to the last "stable" price and held there until after I moved. (this was several years ago).
If it moves, compile it
loctrice wrote:
Yeah, odd how gas can change like the market. The station buys it at (hypothetical) 2.00 a gallon. When they say gas is up, they still sell it at a higher rate. Then they make 3.50 a gallon off the same stuff they were selling at 2.00 a minute ago. Makes no sense to me.
Gas stations actually make more money when gas prices are going down. A simplified model makes that clear... 1. Whole sale price $3.00, when station buys. Sells for $3.20. Next purchase wholesale price is $3.40. So station must pay more for same amount of gas as last time. So it loses. 2. Whole sale price $3.00, when station buys. Sells for $3.20. Next purchase wholesale price is $2.60. So station wins. Excluding limited markets, stations have a very strong competitive market because there are so many of them. So they keep prices as low as they can. Most stations prefer stable prices so they can predict it.
-
You have an obsession with Fox. I do not even watch or read the news, any news. You need a new conspiracy theory. Wikipedia can be changed by anyone. How is that better than youtube? So, why aren't you all over Dave, the original poster of this thread. He did not have ANY references, just his opinion. So, what is your problem if I post a video that is a COMPILATION, not a single source, of video and radio? All I was doing was bringing up the possibility not a fact, as I stated in the post.
ryanb31 wrote:
I do not even watch or read the news, any news.
Just curious how you have arrived at your current political views of the current president then. Or even the last one for that matter. But perhaps your definition of "news" is significantly different than mine.
-
It's simple really. His politics and socialist practices have deflated the dollar worldwide. That is a major contributing factor to our prices going up. The dollar doesn't buy as much as it used to.
ryanb31 wrote:
It's simple really. His politics and socialist practices have deflated the dollar worldwide. That is a major contributing factor to our prices going up.
Utter nonsense. You obviously have no grasp of economics in general nor that of the energy market. You also seem to be lacking in what the real impact of the president is as well as completely ignoring (or lack of knowledge) the impact of congress and the current make up of that body.
-
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.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
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.That of course is incredibly simplistic and has little to do with the short term price fluctuations (noting of course that there is a difference between absolute supply and limited short term perceived problems with supply channels.)
-
ryanb31 wrote:
I do not even watch or read the news, any news.
Just curious how you have arrived at your current political views of the current president then. Or even the last one for that matter. But perhaps your definition of "news" is significantly different than mine.
I watched the debates and visited his website. I do see articles people post from time to time but I do not visit any news site with any regularity. I actually used to visit CNN from time to time but it was so depressing. Nothing but bad articles. People cutting up their parents and putting them in their freezer, those types of stories. And then a few years back when California was voting on Prop 8, a few hours before polls closed CNN was claiming it was going to fail overwhelmingly and so I happened to check FOX news and they said it was a close race based on exit polls. Anyway, later that day after the polls closed and Prop 8 officially passed CNN did not even have the story anywhere. I searched all over the site. FOX reported it accurately. Anyway, news is depressing and very often incorrect and most often incomplete. Why bother? CP is my news site. :) Pity me.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
It's simple really. His politics and socialist practices have deflated the dollar worldwide. That is a major contributing factor to our prices going up.
Utter nonsense. You obviously have no grasp of economics in general nor that of the energy market. You also seem to be lacking in what the real impact of the president is as well as completely ignoring (or lack of knowledge) the impact of congress and the current make up of that body.