Why Obama needs to be the next President.
-
Bob almighty it was a joke!
Look at me still talking when there's science to do When I look out there it makes me glad I'm not you
-
You don't even live in the US, so of course you want the worse possible President for us. Still bitter over that thing a couple of hundred years ago. :) Obama is way worse than Bush. Obama is radical, leftist, socialist, anti-American, anti-Constitution, etc, etc. I saw a sign the other day that mentioned our gas was $1.78/gallon when Obama took office and now it is $3.70/gallon, how's that for change? Ya, Obama is no good.
I can't reconcile this:
ryanb31 wrote:
Obama is way worse than Bush. Obama is radical, leftist, socialist, anti-American, anti-Constitution, etc, etc.
With this:
ryanb31 wrote:
I saw a sign the other day that mentioned our gas was $1.78/gallon when Obama took office and now it is $3.70/gallon, how's that for change? Ya, Obama is no good.
So you want Obama to implement radical, leftist, socialist policies in order to make sure we don't pay more than $1.78 for gas? Do you pay the $3.70? Would you pay $4.50? If so, let 'em charge it. Otherwise, you're a socialist, anti-business liberal.
Look at me still talking when there's science to do When I look out there it makes me glad I'm not you
-
I can't reconcile this:
ryanb31 wrote:
Obama is way worse than Bush. Obama is radical, leftist, socialist, anti-American, anti-Constitution, etc, etc.
With this:
ryanb31 wrote:
I saw a sign the other day that mentioned our gas was $1.78/gallon when Obama took office and now it is $3.70/gallon, how's that for change? Ya, Obama is no good.
So you want Obama to implement radical, leftist, socialist policies in order to make sure we don't pay more than $1.78 for gas? Do you pay the $3.70? Would you pay $4.50? If so, let 'em charge it. Otherwise, you're a socialist, anti-business liberal.
Look at me still talking when there's science to do When I look out there it makes me glad I'm not you
-
If we are going to make fun of Mitt's faith, can we bring up the church Obama attended for 20 years? With the fanatical minister screaming about how "whitey is the devil"? (not hard to find videos online, unless you are looking at ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN web sites of course)
Roy from Detroit wrote:
can we bring up the church Obama attended for 20 years
sure. I am not religious, nor do I believe in God. I don't want my country to be run on faith. I don't think I was making fun of the Mormon faith, if it came off that way, then I apologize. Although I am not a believer, I do try not to "make fun" of someone's faith. Pointing out what I and millions of other people deem to be facts, is not "making fun". Hurting sensitive feelings, maybe, but not "making fun". -- Cheers.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011) "It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011) -
Absolutely not. No, I did not use it as a "solid ref." Ironically, you also used internet references to backup your side. There is always an article to support any point of view.
First off you brought up the point and only gave that link as your ref, thus implying your point must be true because of it, i.e. that is your "solid ref" Secondaly using youtube as a reference is by no means comparible to using wikipedia. Granted wikipedia is not the same as using a straight up encyclipedia, but it is the next best thing in todays digital world. It is truth controlled by the people. Sure things get messed up etc etc, but it eventually all comes together. youtube is for anyone to post whatever the heck they want so long as no "X" or copywrittenn material. By no means is it a solid reference. Using it as a ref is about as effective as saying its true because I said its true. Yes there is an article to support any view. However look at references to and from the article. Wikipedia is full of both. Thats why it is a decent source. This is why FOX is crap. They do things like "Some people say <Insert right wing propoganda here>" and get away with it because by FOX announcing it, they have essentially made their statement true but not the claim. For example, I can say truthfully "Some people say that ryanb31[^] is a FOX drone that was put here on CP to stir up controversy amoungst the programming community" I just said it so the statement is true. Wether the claim is true is irrelevent. This is a tactic that FOX has been using for years to push bogus propoganda such as Obama's legitimacy to the presidency.
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.
-
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.
You obviously have no idea how gas is priced. The US has been paying a fraction of the price that the rest of the world has for decades. Now that it is balancing you gripe. You are like every other propogandist. You want everything for cheap yet don't understand the economics of why it is cheap and why it can not continue to be cheap. Supply and demand says it will go up. Then you have dim wit presidential canidates proposing $2.50 per gallon locked. Now that is socialism. Get it straight.
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.
-
First off you brought up the point and only gave that link as your ref, thus implying your point must be true because of it, i.e. that is your "solid ref" Secondaly using youtube as a reference is by no means comparible to using wikipedia. Granted wikipedia is not the same as using a straight up encyclipedia, but it is the next best thing in todays digital world. It is truth controlled by the people. Sure things get messed up etc etc, but it eventually all comes together. youtube is for anyone to post whatever the heck they want so long as no "X" or copywrittenn material. By no means is it a solid reference. Using it as a ref is about as effective as saying its true because I said its true. Yes there is an article to support any view. However look at references to and from the article. Wikipedia is full of both. Thats why it is a decent source. This is why FOX is crap. They do things like "Some people say <Insert right wing propoganda here>" and get away with it because by FOX announcing it, they have essentially made their statement true but not the claim. For example, I can say truthfully "Some people say that ryanb31[^] is a FOX drone that was put here on CP to stir up controversy amoungst the programming community" I just said it so the statement is true. Wether the claim is true is irrelevent. This is a tactic that FOX has been using for years to push bogus propoganda such as Obama's legitimacy to the presidency.
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 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.
-
You obviously have no idea how gas is priced. The US has been paying a fraction of the price that the rest of the world has for decades. Now that it is balancing you gripe. You are like every other propogandist. You want everything for cheap yet don't understand the economics of why it is cheap and why it can not continue to be cheap. Supply and demand says it will go up. Then you have dim wit presidential canidates proposing $2.50 per gallon locked. Now that is socialism. Get it straight.
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 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.
Wikipedia edits can be (and for articles people actually read, are) reviewed. Youtube contains whatever the hell people dump on it. It's like asking "what's the difference between a peer-reviewed journal and arxiv?", with some emphasis on "like" because wikipedia articles are not guaranteed to be peer reviewed, they can be "reviewed by some dumbfuck" or not reviewed at all. It at least tries to have some semblance of review though. edit: also, why is someone downvoting the entire thread?
-
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.
I do not rant on Dave because for the most part his statement was rather "jokish". Quite funny if you ask me. Although he did not put a joke icon... To me that just says Haha its funny cause its true. You however responded directly to his post about BS propoganda comming from... Need I say it. FOX. That is why I keep bringing it up. You say you don't watch it. Well you clearly watch or listen to their affiliates. That is where that crap came from. People that watch FOX then ran with it to make up more BS using the same tactics.
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.
-
Wikipedia edits can be (and for articles people actually read, are) reviewed. Youtube contains whatever the hell people dump on it. It's like asking "what's the difference between a peer-reviewed journal and arxiv?", with some emphasis on "like" because wikipedia articles are not guaranteed to be peer reviewed, they can be "reviewed by some dumbfuck" or not reviewed at all. It at least tries to have some semblance of review though. edit: also, why is someone downvoting the entire thread?
Cause he can't handle when he is wrong. He downvotes people that don't agree with his philosophy. Quite amusing actually, cause the math works against him. Post +1 Low Rep downvote -2 High Rep Counter +24 Net +23 sometimes more as sometimes there are even more counter votes. Sometimes less cause sometimes the coutner is not a high rep. Either way one counter lifts the rep. Where as if he did not univote you would have just got a +1 for the post. So thank you mr. univoter. I just hit 18K cause of you ;)
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.
-
I do not rant on Dave because for the most part his statement was rather "jokish". Quite funny if you ask me. Although he did not put a joke icon... To me that just says Haha its funny cause its true. You however responded directly to his post about BS propoganda comming from... Need I say it. FOX. That is why I keep bringing it up. You say you don't watch it. Well you clearly watch or listen to their affiliates. That is where that crap came from. People that watch FOX then ran with it to make up more BS using the same tactics.
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.
How do you know mine was not also meant to be humorous? Just because you misunderstood me don't get uptight about it. Are you saying every one of the clips in that youtube video and even the radio clips in it were from Fox? You clearly have an issue with Fox. So, who do you get your news from? CNN, I'll bet.
-
How do you know mine was not also meant to be humorous? Just because you misunderstood me don't get uptight about it. Are you saying every one of the clips in that youtube video and even the radio clips in it were from Fox? You clearly have an issue with Fox. So, who do you get your news from? CNN, I'll bet.
ryanb31 wrote:
How do you know mine was not also meant to be humorous?
Because I can read and I have read Dave's and your posts before. So now you are claiming it was a Joke?
ryanb31 wrote:
Are you saying every one of the clips in that youtube video and even the radio clips in it were from Fox?
No I did not say that. I said they were prompted by FOX's propoganda. Yes I have an issue with any media that claims to be unbiased yet clearly is. I get my news from numerous sources, including CNN and yes even FOX. However, I disect it when it is something I want to discuss publicly. In fact I tend to play devils advocate with most reports if I sence any political banter as canidates and their campaign committees have been caught numerous times for leaking false information. This is not just republicans either, although they tend to do it more and get caught doing so as well.
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.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
How do you know mine was not also meant to be humorous?
Because I can read and I have read Dave's and your posts before. So now you are claiming it was a Joke?
ryanb31 wrote:
Are you saying every one of the clips in that youtube video and even the radio clips in it were from Fox?
No I did not say that. I said they were prompted by FOX's propoganda. Yes I have an issue with any media that claims to be unbiased yet clearly is. I get my news from numerous sources, including CNN and yes even FOX. However, I disect it when it is something I want to discuss publicly. In fact I tend to play devils advocate with most reports if I sence any political banter as canidates and their campaign committees have been caught numerous times for leaking false information. This is not just republicans either, although they tend to do it more and get caught doing so as well.
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.
-
Wikipedia edits can be (and for articles people actually read, are) reviewed. Youtube contains whatever the hell people dump on it. It's like asking "what's the difference between a peer-reviewed journal and arxiv?", with some emphasis on "like" because wikipedia articles are not guaranteed to be peer reviewed, they can be "reviewed by some dumbfuck" or not reviewed at all. It at least tries to have some semblance of review though. edit: also, why is someone downvoting the entire thread?
harold aptroot wrote:
why is someone downvoting the entire thread?
Don't ask me. Maybe they really like grey.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
You are taking this way over the top. I simply stated that Obama MAY not even be a citizen. CNN is terrible with its propaganda. All of the "numerous sources" you get your news from all all biased. They all are.
ryanb31 wrote:
You are taking this way over the top. I simply stated that Obama MAY not even be a citizen.
Which is repulbican mud slinging at best. Don't post such crud in a serious manner if you do not want to get flamed for it.
ryanb31 wrote:
CNN is terrible with its propaganda. All of the "numerous sources" you get your news from all all biased. They all are.
You apparently can't read between the lines. My implication there was that I use numerous unbiased and even biased sources to gather my information. I do not use just FOX or CNN. In fact I rarely use either. But I do use them to start some research. I personally like to use social networks for sourcing because the exposer is much quicker. However from there one needs to still dig into the unexposed references to ensure the exposed reference is not biased. For example, using G+ you can follow numerous feeds which will provide links. After you see something you are interested in hit a couple different search engines and see what comes up. I try to steer clear of the known biased references until I am trying to find the source of what seems to be crud.
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 are taking this way over the top. I simply stated that Obama MAY not even be a citizen. CNN is terrible with its propaganda. All of the "numerous sources" you get your news from all all biased. They all are.
Hey, the guy went on national television to show his birth certificate. Surely that put an end to the debate. :rolleyes:
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
ryanb31 wrote:
You are taking this way over the top. I simply stated that Obama MAY not even be a citizen.
Which is repulbican mud slinging at best. Don't post such crud in a serious manner if you do not want to get flamed for it.
ryanb31 wrote:
CNN is terrible with its propaganda. All of the "numerous sources" you get your news from all all biased. They all are.
You apparently can't read between the lines. My implication there was that I use numerous unbiased and even biased sources to gather my information. I do not use just FOX or CNN. In fact I rarely use either. But I do use them to start some research. I personally like to use social networks for sourcing because the exposer is much quicker. However from there one needs to still dig into the unexposed references to ensure the exposed reference is not biased. For example, using G+ you can follow numerous feeds which will provide links. After you see something you are interested in hit a couple different search engines and see what comes up. I try to steer clear of the known biased references until I am trying to find the source of what seems to be crud.
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.
-
Hey, the guy went on national television to show his birth certificate. Surely that put an end to the debate. :rolleyes:
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
I must have missed that one. The lawyer in the video I posted explains that even if he were born in the US, natural born also means both parents are citizens and Obama's father was not. I don't know if it is true or not, just thought it was interesting.