Why Obama needs to be the next President.
-
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.
-
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.
Well, there were claims that the certificate was a forgery, but that well known arbiter Snopes has this[^] to say on the matter.
*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
-
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.
-
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