geekhack

geekhack Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: microsoft windows on Fri, 07 December 2012, 16:20:10

Title: Obama
Post by: microsoft windows on Fri, 07 December 2012, 16:20:10
So how do you feel about him? Dish the dirt here.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: jwaz on Fri, 07 December 2012, 16:21:51
seems chill
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: tjcaustin on Fri, 07 December 2012, 16:22:17
I hear that he doesn't like clicky mechanical keyboards and that's clearly stupid because the best switches click.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: xsphat on Fri, 07 December 2012, 16:29:12
I hear that he doesn't like clicky mechanical keyboards and that's clearly stupid because the best switches click.

Would it be better if he was into the reds?
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: tjcaustin on Fri, 07 December 2012, 16:30:18
Nope.  It doesn't even make sense that he's not into Blues, I guess he just likes his Blacks.  Probably the stiffer spring.

Title: Obama
Post by: Halverson on Fri, 07 December 2012, 16:31:13
Nope.  It doesn't even make sense that he's not into Blues, I guess he just likes his Blacks.  Probably the stiffer spring.

His manly man hands need linear greys bro! Not even greens satisfy him.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: tjcaustin on Fri, 07 December 2012, 16:32:03
Nope.  It doesn't even make sense that he's not into Blues, I guess he just likes his Blacks.  Probably the stiffer spring.

His manly man hands need linear greys bro! Not even greens satisfy him.

SIIIIIIIGHHHHHH

Title: Re: Obama
Post by: shadewolf on Fri, 07 December 2012, 16:35:38
Nope.  It doesn't even make sense that he's not into Blues, I guess he just likes his Blacks.  Probably the stiffer spring.

(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/002/135/sw50sw8sw578.gif)
Title: Obama
Post by: Halverson on Fri, 07 December 2012, 16:37:03
Sighhhhhayeaye....duck
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: shadewolf on Fri, 07 December 2012, 16:38:02
Sighhhhhayeaye....duck

Hey at least I used the tame version of that gif :eek:
Title: Obama
Post by: Halverson on Fri, 07 December 2012, 16:39:01
Sighhhhhayeaye....duck

Hey at least I used the tame version of that gif :eek:

That's was for tj. Not you :)

Gif away!
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: shadewolf on Fri, 07 December 2012, 16:40:40
Sure thing, girlshark!

(http://www.aeternum.co.uk/images/ocuk/girlshark.jpg)

Edit: Made it smaller :P
Title: Obama
Post by: Halverson on Fri, 07 December 2012, 16:42:33
Sure thing, girlshark!

Show Image
(http://www.aeternum.co.uk/images/ocuk/girlshark.jpg)


Oh god..kill it with fire! Kind of looks like a buddy of mines ex...ugh
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: demik on Fri, 07 December 2012, 17:07:44
inb4 ron paul retards
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Fri, 07 December 2012, 17:38:40
Obama? Well I think he's essentially the same as Mitt Romney. A tyrant.

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/271811-50-major-similarities-between-obama-romney.html

inb4 ron paul retards

inb4 statist retards. OH WAIT!

(http://i.imgur.com/kwW8Q.png)
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Computer-Lab in Basement on Fri, 07 December 2012, 18:43:27
Where's DanG with his avatar?  That pretty much sums it up:

(http://geekhack.org/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=7442;type=avatar)

Or from Clint Eastwood's perspective:

(http://ewpopwatch.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/invisible-obama.jpg)

This too:

(http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/empty-chair-day-fire-obama-make-my-day.jpg)
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: WRXChris on Fri, 07 December 2012, 18:50:10
I heard he likes to kill people with drone strikes (especially children (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=obama+drone+children&qpvt=obama+drone+children&FORM=IGRE))...    Sometimes Americans too... (http://www.salon.com/2010/04/07/assassinations_2/)

EDIT: aaannd I just lost all respect for demilk.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Lanx on Fri, 07 December 2012, 21:12:31
he's got nothing to lose now that he got his second term, but he's gonna fail this economic cliff or whatever it is, cuz he's the most castrated prez, someone should tell clinton to give his copy of "how to be a prez like a boss, get sexual favors, and have your stupid wife forgive you" to obama.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: MMB on Sat, 08 December 2012, 00:45:22
(http://i1166.photobucket.com/albums/q603/magicmeatballs/173081730871_zpsef109847.jpg)
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sat, 08 December 2012, 08:16:01
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-87igwIrM1iw/UE0GMqJzIWI/AAAAAAAAFGY/7exvmFju9oQ/s640/Obama-frown.png)
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Sat, 08 December 2012, 12:20:16
inb4 ron paul retards
This post is so much more amusing in the context of keyboardlover's one immediately after with the predictable "ron paul retard" inflammatory hyperbole.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sat, 08 December 2012, 12:37:47
Actually I am not a RP supporter at all, but I like a lot of things about him.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Sat, 08 December 2012, 14:07:37
That still qualifies you as a "Ron Paul retard" though.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Findecanor on Sat, 08 December 2012, 14:12:24
Obama is not the president that USA should have, but he is better than the alternative.
Title: Re: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sat, 08 December 2012, 14:24:58
That still qualifies you as a "Ron Paul retard" though.

Say wut? How so.

 
Obama is not the president that USA should have, but he is better than the alternative.

I think many people felt that either Obama or Romney were absolutely the "lesser of two evils" however in my research I was unable to actually find a single factual explanation why. In the end I determined that the only possible vote was one for evil. Which is how I realized that not voting is actually still a viable vote, depending on one's moral and ethical character.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Sat, 08 December 2012, 15:46:33
I wanted Obama to win because upset conservatards are slightly more funny than upset libtards.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: tjcaustin on Sat, 08 December 2012, 15:49:35
Obama is not the president that USA should have, but he is better than the alternative.

I was so hoping for a Batman reference here.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sat, 08 December 2012, 15:51:52
I wanted Obama to win because upset conservatards are slightly more funny than upset libtards.

Oh ok. Sometimes I think the surest sign of how big a charade the whole thing is, is how NOT seriously the majority of people take the whole thing. Lol.

Oh wait, people are dying as a result. NOT lol.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: TheQsanity on Sat, 08 December 2012, 16:30:37
I like him, he's black.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: BiNiaRiS on Sat, 08 December 2012, 16:38:06
i voted for Gary Johnson.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: davkol on Sat, 08 December 2012, 17:03:26
I like him, he's black.
Booo-ring... The Czech republic will hopefully have a blue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Franz) president. That would be at least unique.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sat, 08 December 2012, 17:07:54
I like him, he's black.
Booo-ring... The Czech republic will hopefully have a blue (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Franz) president. That would be at least unique.

(http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/501a8823ecad048b7f00001e/vladimir-franz-czech-election.jpg)

(http://tiwibzone.tiwib.netdna-cdn.com/images/tobias-funke-blue-myself.jpg)
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Lanx on Sat, 08 December 2012, 19:01:28
Obama is not the president that USA should have, but he is better than the alternative.

I was so hoping for a Batman reference here.
2008 the dark knight
2012 the dark knight rises
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: iri on Sun, 09 December 2012, 05:38:34
i'd definitely vote for franz if i were a czech citizen. i'm all racist pro blue people. and vladimir means "the owner of the world" by the way.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 09 December 2012, 07:35:57
My uncle coined the phrase "I'm outta here like Vladimir!"

Don't ask what it means. I think he was drunk.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Findecanor on Sun, 09 December 2012, 08:19:52
I think many people felt that either Obama or Romney were absolutely the "lesser of two evils" however in my research I was unable to actually find a single factual explanation why.
Overall, I think that Obama has a mostly pragmatic approach, but that he has bad advisers and that he is too afraid to fight for change. He allows himself to be too limited by the political climate, a climate caused by politicians where many are corrupt. The Republicans seem to be ruled more by ideology than common sense.

The downturn in economy was caused by a systemic failure in the financial system which stems back to the '80s, with a reliance on flawed macroeconomic theory and a string of bad decisions made by Reagan, Clinton and "Dubya" that allowed high finance to cause the trouble that the economy is in. High finance wants to keep the current system, so that it can conduct business as usual.
Obama has a guy from high finance as his top advisor on the economy, but I don't think that Obama is completely convinced. Romney is part of high finance and has been outspoken about wanting to apply the values of high finance to the US gov's. economy.
What USA and the world needs is a US president that has a critical eye and is willing to reform. Don't expect the economy to recover any time soon.

Obama does not have a clue about Afghanistan but it looks like his heart is at least in the right place. The Afghan government is corrupt and the war is escalating. I don't think that Romney even cares.

Obama got Osama Bin Ladin shot instead of brought to trial. Bad move if you want to get people in that region on your side. I would not be surprised if Romney would have bombed the house instead.

Obama, as a president of one of the countries that emits most carbon into the air does practically nothing against climate change. USA has never been part of the Kyoto Protocol, and the current negotiations at Doha have not produced anything of value mainly because of the US and China. The US government could have taken a leadership position, but doesn't.
In ten-twenty years, you should expect a disaster at the scale of Katrina every year. There will be more draught and floods causing problems with food production. Bad weather will halter trade. The economy will turn worse in the long term because of climate change caused by the want for short-term profits. Don't expect FEMA to have many resources for helping the Bay Area (overdue for an earth quake) or Seattle (when Mt Rainier erupts).
On the other side, Romney is from a cult (Mormons) that welcomes Doomsday and does not think that it could come soon enough.

Obama is critical of Israel's conduct in Gaza and on the West Bank. Romney is from a cult (Mormons) that would do everything to help Israel, because.. again, a strong Jewish state in Israel becomes right before Doomsday according to their belief.

Which is how I realized that not voting is actually still a viable vote, depending on one's moral and ethical character.
There is not only the notion of voting for the candidate with the right views. The candidate must also have a chance of having influence, or otherwise your vote would be wasted.
If I was a US citizen, I would have voted for Obama only to help keep the other guy away.

Well, at least it was not Obama vs Palin. Palin would have been much worse.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 09 December 2012, 08:31:27
Our financial problems are much deeper than you mentioned here and they actually go back to decisions which were made after WW2. What you have not mentioned here is one of the root problems - the Federal Reserve bank - which neither candidate had any plans to correct. Lowering or increasing taxes never works in terms of long-term financial success - and both candidates defended one of those viewpoints. And taxation - at it's very core in this country - is more dangerous than most people are aware. We are literally forced, under threat of gun/prison, to fund murder of innocent people and the creation of poverty. As you can see from the article I posted above (it is a must-read btw; the fact-checking is excellent), both candidates support NDAA indefinite detention and the abolishment of various other civil liberties, continued military presence overseas and increasing our control/policing the world, increased spending overall, etc. Neither ever had real plans to "fix the debt", nor do they plan to. Does it make sense for Americans? Yes. Does it make sense for the bureaucrats? No. Making us less prosperous as a people and less "free" is key to gaining control of a populace.

So, at the end of the day, I still feel strongly that whether or not you think the candidate is the "lesser of two evils" is completely up to your personal opinion - not on fact. I mean, why does anyone even trust Obama? He hardly made good on ANY of his promises from his initial campaign. Why the hell is Guantanamo Bay still open? He, like Romney, is a liar and not one to be trusted.

Not voting, to me, makes more sense than voting for a "lesser of two evils". Because I don't wish to take part in their charade; their game. AND, I do not wish to vote in favor of evil, in any shape or form. And not voting gives me that option.

Edit: I just remembered, one big reason why people thought Obama was the "lesser of two evils" was because of he didn't want to defund Planned Parenthood, which Romney had planned to do. However, RomneyCare is the same ****ing bill as ObamaCare (amazing how I find no one is aware of this btw) and INCLUDES comprehensive health services for women. So I'm like "Oh right, Obama cares more about women - well EXCEPT for the ones he drone bombs in the middle east".
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: iri on Sun, 09 December 2012, 08:38:58
you could have voted for non-republican / non-democrat candidate instead.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 09 December 2012, 08:42:39
you could have voted for non-republican / non-democrat candidate instead.

Yea but where does that get you in a system that is completely fixed by elites? Even the NRA, which supposedly helps its members keep their 2nd amendment right to bear arms, was bought out by the Romney campaign and LIED to their members about Romney's stance on guns (he enacted some of the strictest gun control measures ever in MA, in order in part to buy votes from Democrats - and he even admitted it!) I mean for God's sake, Ron Paul was BOOed on stage when he told people that the military is murdering people overseas! Not to mention he wasn't allowed to debate in all of the debates and was given MUCH less time than other candidates. But everyone's view on "equal rights" always applies to the interests of no one but themselves.

They know that people don't like the truth - it's scary and makes people feel weird/uncomfortable. It's easier to just go with what you've been fed.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: metalliqaz on Sun, 09 December 2012, 09:26:41
(http://i.imgur.com/SmyXI.jpg)
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 09 December 2012, 09:30:33
^ Well said!
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: iri on Sun, 09 December 2012, 11:26:20
you could have voted for non-republican / non-democrat candidate instead.

Yea but where does that get you in a system that is completely fixed by elites? Even the NRA, which supposedly helps its members keep their 2nd amendment right to bear arms, was bought out by the Romney campaign and LIED to their members about Romney's stance on guns (he enacted some of the strictest gun control measures ever in MA, in order in part to buy votes from Democrats - and he even admitted it!) I mean for God's sake, Ron Paul was BOOed on stage when he told people that the military is murdering people overseas! Not to mention he wasn't allowed to debate in all of the debates and was given MUCH less time than other candidates. But everyone's view on "equal rights" always applies to the interests of no one but themselves.

They know that people don't like the truth - it's scary and makes people feel weird/uncomfortable. It's easier to just go with what you've been fed.
i see you don't believe in your chance to change this situation. but not voting does zero harm to the system anyways.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 09 December 2012, 11:31:14
i see you don't believe in your chance to change this situation. but not voting does zero harm to the system anyways.

Depends on your view, but without doubt it can be an important part of an overall encompassing goal to promote change based on all kinds of individual actions one can take. I won't get into all the details of that here though. If you'd like more info, shoot me a PM.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: SmallFry on Sun, 09 December 2012, 12:32:22
OK, so from my perspective... one parent is all for Obama, the other not... so I have a pretty "even" load of bullcrap on either side.
As a teenager, I've had friends' parents lose their jobs, but also regain them. So, politics, to me, is irrelevant to how people choose to work and their work ethic. Yes, times are tough, yes, people aren't working hard. And yes people who were did lose their jobs, but blaming the government is silly, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 09 December 2012, 13:01:29
Well it's not completely irrelevant - the system of welfare HAS arguably created an entitlement society. Even Roosevelt warned that it would (when he created it, the jackass). It creates a negative change in the human spirit, creates poverty and keeps the poor, poor.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Sun, 09 December 2012, 13:10:02
Well it's not completely irrelevant - the system of welfare HAS arguably created an entitlement society. Even Roosevelt warned that it would (when he created it, the jackass). It creates a negative change in the human spirit, creates poverty and keeps the poor, poor.
Absolute pish. If that's the case how come places with the most comprehensive welfare systems like Nordic countries always have the most wealth per capita, lowest unemployment rates, highest cancer survival rates, etc. etc. and places with less welfare (the USA being the most obvious example as far as the developed world is concerned) have much poorer ratings in those measurements?

I mean, I'm not even pro-welfare/socialism because I'm rich and have private insurance and such, but I won't stoop to making blatantly BS arguments like yours to justify my position, I'll just admit it's because higher taxes in favour of a better social safety net isn't in my personal best interests.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 09 December 2012, 13:15:28
The only European countries where it is currently "working" are so rich (like Norway or Switzerland) that, for now, it's not a big deal. That doesn't make it sustainable though. If my argument was blatantly B.S., then it would be...but it isn't. Try a better argument next time.

More info here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html

All the European socialist countries which don't have a ton of money are either failing miserably, or are doing whatever they can to keep afloat. Like Germany, who is currently bankrupting Greece with the help of the conglomerate known as Siemens who obtained control of all their infrastructure due to bribery.

P.S. Anything I mention like this is very read-able with a quick Google search. I have no interest nor use for propaganda, "B.S." arguments, or anything of the like.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Sun, 09 December 2012, 13:20:05
You're a naive lad, keyboardlover. Try seeing how things work in the real world instead of watching Ron Paul speeches and reading one-sided essays on the Internet.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 09 December 2012, 13:23:54
You're a naive lad, keyboardlover. Try seeing how things work in the real world instead of watching Ron Paul speeches and reading one-sided essays on the Internet.

I get the sense that if you could effectively argue my position, you would, rather than reply like this :)
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Sun, 09 December 2012, 13:31:54
You don't have a position to argue against. Your argument for why you think your opinion is correct is because you read an essay by a guy on the Internet that says so. Your entire philosophy on the issue is so transparently cliche and without personal thought that it's embarrassing. I live/work/travel in Europe, whilst you're parroting stuff you've read on the Internet or seen on the news. Southern Europe is failing because they're fundamentally crap for longstanding cultural/political reasons, not because they're socialist. Whilst the North is doing fine, even (perhaps especially) the more socialist ones such as Norway, Sweden, etc. Your argument is that they're doing well "because they're rich" whilst utterly oblivious to the fact that a large part of why they're rich is because of socialist policies such as universal, high-quality education, nationalised industries (e.g. North Sea oil), etc.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 09 December 2012, 13:39:23
I can assure you, first off, that I have spent a lot of time traveling Europe (I've personally traveled to all of the UK, Ireland, Italy, France, Netherlands, Romania, Hungary), working with Europeans, and I also have family which I communicate with still living in Europe. And that's just Europe, I've also traveled extensively in Canada and I've been to Mexico. How does stealing money from your people and spending it make you rich? Those countries have a ton of money because of other means. If you don't know that socialist countries are failing because of socialism (and it isn't just happening in the South), then you've obviously bought into the statist propaganda. Which, to be honest, is completely understandable. We're all indoctrinated from youth and conditioned.

Do you actually have an effective argument or are you just going to keep trolling?

And to take things a step further, if we agree that fascism and communism don't work, then why do you believe socialism works? It, along with democracy, has been proven so obviously not to work at this point it is so obvious it's ridiculous. The writing is on the wall! If you want to ignore it, then fine. The simpler life is not to know; the more complex life is to know.

And, as a good friend of mine said, "revolutions are NEVER led by fat people." If you keep people well-fed and complacent, you can essentially get them to believe just about anything in regards to whether you're doing the right thing.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Sun, 09 December 2012, 14:03:01
Firstly, different opinion from you != trolling. It's always a sign of desperation in a debate when someone resorts to the "calling the other side a troll" card. Also, Who said fascism and communism don't work? Nazi Germany and the USSR are fairly obvious examples of massive success as far as economic advancement goes. Germany went from being a broken mess to the biggest power in Europe in a few decades, and Russia went from a country of peons to the first nation in space and one of the two global superpowers. How is either of those not working, from an economic standpoint? Does that mean I'm an advocate of either fascism or communism? Nope. Just as I'm not an advocate of socialism. However I'm still going to call you out on your blinkered and stereotypical BS though.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 09 December 2012, 14:05:54
Firstly, different opinion from you != trolling. It's always a sign of desperation in a debate when someone resorts to the "calling the other side a troll" card. Also, Who said fascism and communism don't work? Nazi Germany and the USSR are fairly obvious examples of massive success as far as economic advancement goes. Germany went from being a broken mess to the biggest power in Europe in a few decades, and Russia went from a country of peons to the first nation in space and one of the two global superpowers. How is either of those not working, from an economic standpoint? Does that mean I'm an advocate of either fascism or communism? Nope. Just as I'm not an advocate of socialism. However I'm still going to call you out on your blinkered and stereotypical BS though.

When I say "works" I am not referring to an economic standpoint (which is really beside the point, since all these systems really result in only the elites having the majority of the wealth). I am referring, instead, to the inevitable poverty and war which are created as a result. As is the case with nearly every type of state.

If I was desperate in this debate, then I would be. Just like, if the welfare state worked, then it would work. ;)
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Sun, 09 December 2012, 14:16:46
When I say "works" I am not referring to an economic standpoint (which is really beside the point, since all these systems really result in only the elites having the majority of the wealth).

Sorry, economics is besides the point despite being the entire basis of this conversation? And communism/socialism results in the elite having the majority of the wealth as opposed to liberal (in the classical sense) capitalism? Did you really just say that and expect your posts to be taken at all seriously? *facepalm*

I am referring, instead, to the inevitable poverty and war which are created as a result. As is the case with nearly every type of state.
Oh jeez...

If I was desperate in this debate, then I would be. Just like, if the welfare state worked, then it would work. ;)
This is getting embarrassing.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 09 December 2012, 14:21:42
Embarrassing for who? Dude, if you can effectively refute my points, then refute them!

And when did I even suggest that laissez-faire capitalism (which I assume you're referring to) doesn't result in something similar? Although, really, that is a completely different conversation entirely, if you want to get into the topic of laissez-faire capitalism vs. classical liberalism or something like that, that is really outside the the realm of this debate (I think). We don't have to waste anyone's time here with that - if you want to though, feel free to shoot me a PM.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: dutmai on Sun, 09 December 2012, 14:28:24
I have to know if he uses a mechanical keyboard before I know if I likehimor not
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 09 December 2012, 14:29:02
I have to know if he uses a mechanical keyboard before I know if I likehimor not

That actually makes more sense than the reasons most people use for voting. :D
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Sun, 09 December 2012, 14:29:59
I've refuted your "points" several times now. You've then resorted to pretending that wasn't the subject, or accusing me of trolling, or just making the same cliche statements with nothing to back them up for the umpteenth time.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Lanx on Sun, 09 December 2012, 14:32:02
obama uses a blackberry which is more mechanical than 98% of us here who use an iphone or droid (not counting the horrible droid keyboard, craps).
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 09 December 2012, 14:37:42
obama uses a blackberry which is more mechanical than 98% of us here who use an iphone or droid (not counting the horrible droid keyboard, craps).

Oh crap. My argument has been destroyed! You CAN'T EXPLAIN THAT!
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: davkol on Sun, 09 December 2012, 14:49:44
When I say "works" I am not referring to an economic standpoint (which is really beside the point, since all these systems really result in only the elites having the majority of the wealth).

Sorry, economics is besides the point despite being the entire basis of this conversation? And communism/socialism results in the elite having the majority of the wealth as opposed to liberal (in the classical sense) capitalism? Did you really just say that and expect your posts to be taken at all seriously? *facepalm*
When we're at it... there wasn't real communism in (Soviet) Russia, there was socialism, dictatorship, corrupt bureaucracy. In fact, I wonder if there has ever been communism except in quite small communities.

The problem with all those ideologies is that they work only for spherical cows in vacuum, not for actual people in real world.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 09 December 2012, 14:51:53
^ What he said. Agreed.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: iri on Sun, 09 December 2012, 15:03:45
Nazi Germany and the USSR are fairly obvious examples of massive success as far as economic advancement goes. Germany went from being a broken mess to the biggest power in Europe in a few decades, and Russia went from a country of peons to the first nation in space and one of the two global superpowers. How is either of those not working, from an economic standpoint?
easily. the first regime mentioned lasted for 12 years. the second one made it into 69 years of existence. both failed miserably lol.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Sun, 09 December 2012, 17:31:14
I say, always be wary of anyone who claims to be "closer to reality" than you. Freedom is a state of mind and reality is essentially perception. If it wasn't then we would always agree. There is a saying that in order to free one's mind, one should be careful to never hold any firm opinion on anything (which can be frustrating, of course), but it frees the mind to be open to acceptance of truth.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: microsoft windows on Mon, 10 December 2012, 14:15:19
The main thing that gets me about Obama is he says he's the one who knows about the middle class, even though he's a millionare.  And then he goes and talks about tomorrow and "moving forward" while he finances wasteful government spending on the backs of our children and grandchildren. But people still voted for him...guess they don't care that the government is basically robbing our future descendants by sticking the bill, over $16 trillion, to them.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Computer-Lab in Basement on Mon, 10 December 2012, 14:19:13
You can't just blame Obama for all of our troubles.  Don't forget about Congress...

(http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2012/12/fiscal-cliff-taxes-congress.jpg)
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Mon, 10 December 2012, 14:21:26
The main thing that gets me about Obama is he says he's the one who knows about the middle class, even though he's a millionare.  And then he goes and talks about tomorrow and "moving forward" while he finances wasteful government spending on the backs of our children and grandchildren. But people still voted for him...guess they don't care that the government is basically robbing our future descendants by sticking the bill, over $16 trillion, to them.

Dude you're WAY older than me. You're just figuring out now that politicians are liars?
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Computer-Lab in Basement on Mon, 10 December 2012, 14:32:25
(http://shiftfrequency.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/cartoon_fiscalcliff.jpg)
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: microsoft windows on Mon, 10 December 2012, 16:09:34
The main thing that gets me about Obama is he says he's the one who knows about the middle class, even though he's a millionare.  And then he goes and talks about tomorrow and "moving forward" while he finances wasteful government spending on the backs of our children and grandchildren. But people still voted for him...guess they don't care that the government is basically robbing our future descendants by sticking the bill, over $16 trillion, to them.


Dude you're WAY older than me. You're just figuring out now that politicians are liars?

Oh, don't worry. I'm no stranger to the political world. Politicians have been lying for over 200 years now. But it's one of the basic flaws of a representative government--if there's one guy running who promises to walk on water, heal the economy, end war and violence, and cure the sick; and another guy running who's honest and says there's not much the government can do--who will more people vote for?
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Mon, 10 December 2012, 21:08:07
Wait - which presidential candidate did you think was telling the truth? I can guarantee you that none of them were.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: SmallFry on Mon, 10 December 2012, 21:15:17
I agree there! Politics is just paid word fighting! :P
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Mon, 10 December 2012, 21:42:46
I agree there! Politics is just paid word fighting! :P

Yep. We are unfortunately forced under threat of gun/prison to pay for them to lie to us. And the worst part is now that the media is so well-controlled, any politicians who attempt to tell the truth effectively commit career suicide since the media will quickly paint them as crazy or worse.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: modulor on Mon, 10 December 2012, 22:04:08
Which is more dangerous - being ruled by fear, or being ruled by hope?

Obama? Well I think he's essentially the same as Mitt Romney. A tyrant.

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/271811-50-major-similarities-between-obama-romney.html


I enjoy this.  It's sad that despite being so similar, both parties are increasingly more divided as time goes on over trivial issues (ex. abortion), and the real important issues go unnoticed (ex. global economies all use fiat currency). 

Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Mon, 10 December 2012, 22:14:13
The parties are similar only in how evil they both are. The differences are shades of gray.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: metalliqaz on Mon, 10 December 2012, 22:29:00
The parties are similar only in how evil they both are. The differences are shades of gray.

I talk to people, call themselves "conservative"
I say "You're not conservative.  REAL conservatives go around throwing acid in the faces of girls who try to get an education, and beheading people who listen to rock music in their cars.

Here... shades of gray, like you said.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Lanx on Tue, 11 December 2012, 00:19:13
The parties are similar only in how evil they both are. The differences are shades of gray.

I talk to people, call themselves "conservative"
I say "You're not conservative.  REAL conservatives go around throwing acid in the faces of girls who try to get an education, and beheading people who listen to rock music in their cars.

Here... shades of gray, like you said.

ppl who call themselves one thing
i'm a conservative
i'm a liberal

are stupid sheep.

no human is just "one" thing, it's an improbability to be all conservative or liberal you can say you "lean" towards being a conservative or a liberal, but to be entirely one thing, is, just like you said to be those types of animals that throw acid and kill raped virgins, or eat veggies and smell bad.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Tue, 11 December 2012, 05:16:53
Because people feel like they need to belong to some kind of club/team or something. And then they STILL support THEIR team even though they suck. Even though their team supports poverty and murder! Goooooooo Team!
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Wed, 12 December 2012, 17:13:38
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/558971_459213024115696_528091384_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: SmallFry on Wed, 12 December 2012, 18:34:16
I wonder of all sorts of crap happened like this during the pre-internet presidents, but we never heard about it because of the lack of said World Wide Web.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Wed, 12 December 2012, 18:36:42
I wonder of all sorts of crap happened like this during the pre-internet presidents, but we never heard about it because of the lack of said World Wide Web.

Winners write the history books!
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: SmallFry on Wed, 12 December 2012, 18:52:27
Not with the internet around, somebody does something vain and the whole world notices overnight. The winners write the books, but the losers are picking up steam.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Wed, 12 December 2012, 18:54:46
Speaking of steam...

(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/190092_498611103495038_925932833_n.jpg)

ABC - Always Bull Crap
CBS - Complete Bull Sh*t
CNN - Certainly Not News
MSNBC - Might Still be Nothing But Crap
AP - All Propaganda
NPR - Neatly Packaged Rhetoric
CBC - Canadian Brainwashing Castration
CTV - Canadian Truth Varnishing
FBC (now FOX) - False Baseless Content
BBC - Better Bull Crap
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: tjcaustin on Wed, 12 December 2012, 18:57:03
Speaking of steam...

Show Image
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/190092_498611103495038_925932833_n.jpg)


ABC - Always Bull Crap
CBS - Complete Bull Sh*t
CNN - Certainly Not News
MSNBC - Might Still be Nothing But Crap
AP - All Propaganda
NPR - Neatly Packaged Rhetoric
CBC - Canadian Brainwashing Castration
CTV - Canadian Truth Varnishing
Show Image
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/558971_459213024115696_528091384_n.jpg)


Yes because children were the targets.  Not people that use children as meatshields while they zealously sacrifice their own lives in the name of their religion.  (This is no strike against Muslims or religion in general)

I note the lack of a certain spin zone, but there's not really a poo based name for them.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Wed, 12 December 2012, 19:07:36
Yes because children were the targets.  Not people that use children as meatshields while they zealously sacrifice their own lives in the name of their religion.  (This is no strike against Muslims or religion in general)

I note the lack of a certain spin zone, but there's not really a poo based name for them.

Put it this way: if you think the actual use of the drones is for a legitimate reason, you need to turn off your television. Rape...kidnapping...murder. It's all ok, so long as the government is doing it.

Edit: I'm thinking you probably mean Fox - yea, couldn't come up with a good acronym for them :)
But they definitely suck hard!
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Lanx on Wed, 12 December 2012, 19:17:43
i never understood why ppl are against drone? to me it's the only logical evolution of war, right now we have have gamers who have 90% the reflexes or even surpass miltary trained fighter pilots, and many of these gamers have grown up with a gamepad in hand. Why not just kill ppl from afar?

plus kids and civilian casualties happen in any war torn conflict, isn't that called collateral damage?
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Wed, 12 December 2012, 19:21:26
Hey, why not just not kill people in the first place? And fund it with money stolen from citizens of a nation at gunpoint?

Don't legitimize tyranny dude. STAHP!
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: clickclack on Wed, 12 December 2012, 19:24:52
Speaking of steam...

ABC - Always Bull Crap
CBS - Complete Bull Sh*t
CNN - Certainly Not News
MSNBC - Might Still be Nothing But Crap
AP - All Propaganda
NPR - Neatly Packaged Rhetoric
CBC - Canadian Brainwashing Castration
CTV - Canadian Truth Varnishing

Ooops! looks like your fogot one-
FBC (now FOX) False Baseless Content

Unless you wanna talk about falsifying others xeroxes.  lol
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Wed, 12 December 2012, 19:26:01
^ Nice one!
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Lanx on Wed, 12 December 2012, 19:44:36
how are drone attacks tyranny? what's the difference between sending in seal team 6 vs. unmanned drone from call of duty.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Wed, 12 December 2012, 19:45:42
There isn't one :)
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: tjcaustin on Wed, 12 December 2012, 20:17:06
Yes because children were the targets.  Not people that use children as meatshields while they zealously sacrifice their own lives in the name of their religion.  (This is no strike against Muslims or religion in general)

I note the lack of a certain spin zone, but there's not really a poo based name for them.

Put it this way: if you think the actual use of the drones is for a legitimate reason, you need to turn off your television. Rape...kidnapping...murder. It's all ok, so long as the government is doing it.

Edit: I'm thinking you probably mean Fox - yea, couldn't come up with a good acronym for them :)
But they definitely suck hard!

Oh, you'll notice I don't say I'm for these endless wars for undefinable terms like "speading democracy", but that picture struck me wrong is all.

I tire of thinking that I'll have my adult life in the background of armed conflict.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: tauburn on Thu, 13 December 2012, 09:49:13
for each drone strike there are about 40 innocent causalities for every alleged terrorist
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: metalliqaz on Thu, 13 December 2012, 09:49:36
[citation needed]
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Lanx on Thu, 13 December 2012, 10:18:29
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/opinion/pakistan-drone-attacks-akbar/index.html

TLDR: scummy lawyer (thats me saying he's scummy, just cuz he's a lawyer, i mean ugh lawyers) tries to sue the CIA for deaths.

that's just one drone attack, i didn't find other articles citing other crazy drones that go rampant.

again drone attacks are awesome, it's awesome technology that kills bad guys from afar!, and if a few innocent lives get lost, well that's the cost of war isn't it? blame the war, not the weapon, heck stray bullets kill ppl too and i'm sure a too sharp knife is responsible for some death, ppl who don't like drone attacks are silly, it's an implement of war and destruction, just like the atomic bombs that crippled two cities in japan, OH NO nuclear technology is bad! Japan will.
1. create Godzilla and mock America, tho they almost always have Godzilla rise up and attack Japan over and over again, like they want and deserve more punishment.
2. they will Make 42 nuclear power plants! cuz you know nuclear power is bad, never use it (as of now 40 are turned off cuz of the 2011 disaster)
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 10:31:50
You obviously haven't read 1984, have you?

If you think that technology which murders people is "awesome", you're exactly the type of person which proves the fact that government is such a very, very dangerous thing. When people are good you don't need government; when people are evil or ambivalent you don't dare institute one.

Again, I say, what about just NOT murdering people?
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: funkymeeba on Thu, 13 December 2012, 11:48:07
Again, I say, what about just NOT murdering people?

Seriously! All the bull**** we do to try to "fix" the Middle East just gives the "terrorists" more reason to **** our **** up. I'm sick of it. We need to focus on improving our **** here before we go meddling with everyone else.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 11:49:25
Dude, WHO is the terrorist anyway? It's the one who creates terror.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: microsoft windows on Thu, 13 December 2012, 12:09:42
I just think we should blow up the whole Middle East and turn it into an international garbage dump. There, problem solved!
Title: Re: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 12:15:06
I just think we should blow up the whole Middle East and turn it into an international garbage dump. There, problem solved!

And this attitude is just another example of why people shouldn't dare create government. Government is a legitimization of evil.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Thu, 13 December 2012, 12:28:26
Yeah, but take a trip to the Durand Line or Somalia and see how great the alternative is. Shouldn't you be past the contrarian teenager level of half-baked ideology by your age? Although Lanx is far worse, admittedly, who's ideology seems to be based on G.I. Joe cartoons and Reagan-era action moves.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 12:29:29
Your ideology is non-existant. The Durand Line and Somalia's problems are all due to statism. Nice try though.

For more info on what I'm talking about, take a look at Native American history or the Spanish Revolution.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Thu, 13 December 2012, 12:35:04
Absolute pish, I'm afraid keyboardlover. If you think a lack of government results in some sort of idealist utopia, rather than a violent, survival-of-the-fittest hellhole (as your above examples were, regardless of your naive and ill-informed opinions) you're utterly deluded.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 12:39:20
Obviously you haven't read up on either of them if that's what you really think.

Why is every one of your arguments some sort of non-factual opinionated blather?
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Thu, 13 December 2012, 12:43:14
Yes, I have. That's why I have a balanced and realistic opinion of them rather than utopian fairytales.

Why are all your arguments  based on one-sided propaganda and only reading into the parts that agree with your pre-set philosophy?
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 12:47:18
Yes, I have. That's why I have a balanced and realistic opinion of them rather than utopian fairytales.

Why are all your arguments  based on one-sided propaganda and only reading into the parts that agree with your pre-set philosophy?

They aren't. If you're so confident of yourself, then GO. Please Malphas, inform the class all about how you feel coercion, force and non-voluntary violence is the best way to create order in society.

When I think of a violent, survival-of-the-fittest hellhole, I think of every type of government that has ever been created by man.

And no, you obviously have NOT read about the aforementioned subjects, or else you would know that both organizations were largely the two most successful true anarchies to ever exist from which, not that there were no problems (typical statist misconception of anarchy vs. utopia), but there was a great extent of equality. More so than has ever been achieved by any single government ever created.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Thu, 13 December 2012, 13:05:10
Coercion, force and non-voluntary violence existed in your examples obviously, it's laughable for you to try and claim otherwise. The Spanish Revolution has a pretty well-documented record of this, with landowners being forced into collectives and those resisting being executed. Pre-Columbian America had more than it's share of war and brutality prior to any "statist" influence also.

It's absolutely inevitable that hierarchies and power imbalances will form in groups of humans and those with the most power/influence will use it over those with less. The majority of recorded human history is evidence of that. The whole point of a modern democratic government is that it's a (clearly imperfect) attempt at a solution for this inevitability, by having a single overaching authority (government) that is intended to be held accountable to the population as a whole and responsible for preventing abuses of power and influence from unaccountable individuals/groups. Does it work perfectly, or even that well? No, of course not, no idiot would claim it does -but as I said before it beats the alternatives by a wide margin. Somalia, etc. are perfect examples of what happens when there's a vacuum when it comes to a central authority, and they're all hellholes. Trying to handwave is as being due to statist influence is just a pathetic attempt at a get-out-of-jail-free card for your argument, without providing any reasoning or evidence for it.

Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 13:15:14
Coercion, force and non-voluntary violence existed in your examples obviously, it's laughable for you to try and claim otherwise. The Spanish Revolution has a pretty well-documented record of this, with landowners being forced into collectives and those resisting being executed. Pre-Columbian America had more than it's share of war and brutality prior to any "statist" influence also.

Wrong, as usual. All exchanges and associations in these examples were voluntary, since there was no state. If you believe otherwise, then please provide an example of such with a decent source to back it up. When I refer to the Spanish Revolution I'm referring specifically to the society which arose from it - where collectivism didn't affect the property of those which originally owned it, rather it was "taken back" from the state which had funded these things with stolen money (buildings, transportation, etc.) Pre-Columbian America had violence, correct, but it wasn't nonvoluntary and at nowhere near the scale of a war caused by statism.

It's absolutely inevitable that hierarchies and power imbalances will form in groups of humans and those with the most power/influence will use it over those with less. The majority of recorded human history is evidence of that. The whole point of a modern democratic government is that it's a (clearly imperfect) attempt at a solution for this inevitability, by having a single overaching authority (government) that is intended to be held accountable to the population as a whole and responsible for preventing abuses of power and influence from unaccountable individuals/groups. Does it work perfectly, or even that well? No, of course not, no idiot would claim it does -but as I said before it beats the alternatives by a wide margin. Somalia, etc. are perfect examples of what happens when there's a vacuum when it comes to a central authority, and they're all hellholes. Trying to handwave is as being due to statist influence is just a pathetic attempt at a get-out-of-jail-free card for your argument, without providing any reasoning or evidence for it.

The argument that statism is inevitable just because force has destroyed otherwise voluntary peaceful societies is not a solid one. It doesn't account for the fact that government may very well be a system completely antiquated for modern humans. After all, we are merely highly-evolved animals. Whether or not government beats the lack thereof simply CANNOT be proven. It doesn't work at all and my examples both show ways in which the lack thereof worked much better (until destroyed by force). Somalia is a perfect example of why statism is such a problem - the struggle for power there in turning Mogadishu into an authority has resulted in long-term statist civil war more akin to modern day Syria! NOT an anarchy.

Please, Malphas, go on...
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Thu, 13 December 2012, 13:23:13
There's nothing more to say since you basically just did the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ear and chant "la la la, I'm not listening". Your insistence the Spanish Revolution and pre-Columbian America were peaceful and voluntary is nonsense. I mean, it's so clearly deluded nonsense that I can't even believe I'm having to state it. You're just being a Kool-Aid drinker, like the ones that support Communism and claim the USSR was a worker's paradise. As for claiming Somalia as an example against statism, my God, really? Claiming an area that has no state, no central authority, nothing whatsoever resembling a government as evidence for why government doesn't work? *facepalm* Power struggles and civil wars are the natural result of power vacuums and lack of an overarching government. Anarchies - as you like to think of them - are unsustainable and have never really existed (other than interludes between power struggles and conflicts).
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 13:26:07
More info about Somalia here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia#2010-2012_government

If I'm the one with my fingers in my ears then why are you just saying that rather than providing decent arguments to refute mine? This is what you ALWAYS do. Because you CANNOT refute my arguments dude.

So instead you respond with:

(http://img.directresponse.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/brick-loud-noises-b1.jpg)

There is NO proof whatsoever that any type of anarchy is unsustainable, other than it being destroyed by force :)

If anyone's been drinking Kool Aid here dude, it's OBVIOUSLY you.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Thu, 13 December 2012, 13:29:39
You don't have any arguments to refute, son. You just keep repeating the same baseless assertions over and over and think you're providing an argument, even though I've already pointed out why those are wrong. Also, Wikipedia links? Please.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 13:30:45
I've said it before and I will say it again. If you could refute my arguments, then you would refute them :)

...Son.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Thu, 13 December 2012, 13:38:53
What arguments? The vague assertions I've already refuted? Those, or something else? This is basically what you do:

Keyboardlover: "organised government is evil (no legitimate reason other than your assertion here) and the best form of human organisation is where decisions are decided based on games of Twister (no reasoning for why), this is how Nazi Germany operated (outright nonsense) and it was a peaceful utopia (more nonsense) until destroyed by the evil forces of Statism.

Malphas "I'm sorry, but that's demented nonsense"

Keyboardlover "See! This is what you always do. You can't refute my arguments, so you resort to your non-factual opinionated blather!!
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 13:40:38
If that was what actually happened, then that would be what actually happened! :D

And you think I'm the one living in a fantasy world?? Dude, put the Kool Aid down!
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Thu, 13 December 2012, 13:45:39
Malphas: "Well, Nazi Germany wasn't actually a peaceful utopia, keyboardlover. It actually had quite a few issues of its own."

keyboardlover: "Wrong! WRONG! Clearly you haven't done your research, or you'd know that wasn't the case. Yes there were some examples of violence, but nowhere near that caused by Statism. If you feel otherwise, please provide me with a comprehensive list of cross-referenced examples to illustrate your point, regardless of the fact everything I claim as fact has nothing to support it whatsoever."
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 13:46:12
Malphas: "Well, Nazi Germany wasn't actually a peaceful utopia, keyboardlover. It actually had quite a few issues of its own."

keyboardlover: "Wrong! WRONG! Clearly you haven't done your research, or you'd know that wasn't the case. Yes there were some examples of violence, but nowhere near that caused by Statism. If you feel otherwise, please provide me with a comprehensive list of cross-referenced examples to illustrate your point, regardless of the fact everything I claim as fact has nothing to support it whatsoever."

If that was what actually happened, then that would be what actually happened! :D

And you think I'm the one living in a fantasy world?? Dude, put the Kool Aid down!
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: tjcaustin on Thu, 13 December 2012, 13:54:23
This is like watching a bad political interview on the news
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 13:55:15
Well MY arguments weren't bad. :D

(You know statist arguments are going to be terrible as soon as they use the word "utopia").
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Thu, 13 December 2012, 14:19:17
And you know anarchist arguments are going to be terrible. *end sentence*
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 14:24:44
Because...ANARCHISM IS TEH BAD! FFFFFFUUUUUHHHHHH!

For more information on Malphas and his terrible opinionated arguments with no fact or truth to back them up, check out this thread where he recommends lying on your resume and argues (incorrectly of course) that it will not have negative consequences!

http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=38156.0
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Thu, 13 December 2012, 14:29:53
I like how you assert I'm the one with opinionated arguments when multiple times in that thread I pointed out the reward-risk relationship of doing so, the end result of each potential decision and detection, and why it made sense from a purely logical standpoint, and not once did you try to refute that and instead just kept changing tact and labelling it unethical instead or just calling the argument "awful" with no reasoning.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 14:31:45
I like how you assert I'm the one with opinionated arguments when multiple times in that thread I pointed out the reward-risk relationship of doing so, the end result of each potential decision and detection, and why it made sense from a purely logical standpoint, and not once did you try to refute that and instead just kept changing tact and labelling it unethical instead or just calling the argument "awful" with no reasoning.

If that was what happened, then that would be what happened :D

Your argument was that it made sense because "people have done it before successfully". Well America is pretty good at bombing people, but that doesn't make it a good idea now does it? I would also further refute your argument that there are "few negative consequences here" in much the same way, but I already have and it is so obviously incorrect that the writing is on the wall as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Thu, 13 December 2012, 14:39:33
No, that wasn't my argument, keyboardlover. I even condensed my argument in one post for your benefit here:

I just don't see where the logical risk is coming from in your mind with this. I mean, you apply for a job for which you are technically underqualified or underqualified compared to the other potential candidates, you either:

A) Are honest and don't get the job.

Or

B) Lie successfully and potentially get the job, or lie unsuccessfully and don't get the job, or get the job and then get fired at a later date.

I don't see how outcome B is significantly worse than outcome A in any end scenario, whilst there's the chance the outcome will be significantly better.

But rather than refute that, you resorted to making it an argument about ethics (which I have no interest in debating because it's irrelevant):

That's because you obviously have a very perverted sense of ethics and have no understanding of the potential negative effects of lying.

I suspect whenever you encounter material that challenges your deluded worldview (like your hopelessly naive anarchist/libertarian leanings) you react in much the same way and simply block them out rather than come to terms with the practical realities of life and the fact things are a much messier shade of grey rather than the black/white evil/good that exists inside your head.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 14:42:32
Lol. You failed to quote where I specifically mentioned the negative consequences which include not only not getting or, later, losing the job, as well as the inability to get a job at said organization ever again! And in doing so, you copied and pasted bits of information to make it look like my argument was poor! LOLOLOLOL!

Dude, you are literally at or below the level of a mainstream media muckraker at this point. No wonder you defend government! You have the exact same tyrannical mindset! Which means you are either VERY badly programmed, or, exactly the type for which government appeals (evil).
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Thu, 13 December 2012, 14:48:39
I copied my post and your direct response. Please don't pretend I selectively chose what to and not to include to make your argument look poor, you do a fine job of that by yourself. Also, all you're adding there in addition to what I already included is that you get barred from employment at that organisation. "Oh no. I can't ever be employed again at one organisation - out of the thousands of other potential employers. Woe is me."
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 14:52:14
Rofl. Keep digging your hole of ridiculous ideology dude.

P.S. Have you heard that Obama is a MUSLIM?????
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Thu, 13 December 2012, 14:54:55
And yes, pointing out your bad arguments, inconsistency and idealistic nonsense, and stating that democratic government is the lesser of evils and preferable to anarchy (which all real world evidence suggests is a much, much worse scenario) - or "defending" government as you put it - certainly makes me evil/programmed/tyrannical/any other ad hominems you can come up with rather than a viable argument. Well done, no hypocrisy there. Believing that anarchy is unrealistic in practice (as real word examples show it to be) and that government is a less-than-ideal alternative that at least results in a degree of stability certainly is a "ridiculous ideology" compared to your beliefs isn't it? You sure showed me.

Ah yes, brilliant! Insinuating I'm xenophobic/islamophobic as well, great stuff. Why not also suggest I'm a fan of Fox News? That'll really demonstrate your superior intellect, won't it?
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 14:57:51
And yes, pointing out your bad arguments, inconsistency and idealistic nonsense, and stating that democratic government is the lesser of evils and preferable to anarchy (which all real world evidence suggests is a much, much worse scenario) - or "defending" government as you put it - certainly makes me evil/programmed/tyrannical/any other ad hominems you can come up with rather than a viable argument. Well done, no hypocrisy there.

...but you didn't do any of those things. Aside from defending (poorly) that democracy is a lesser of evils (an argument which legitimizes not only evil but also statism, tyranny, war, murder, etc.) If that doesn't make you programmed, then it makes you evil.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: funkymeeba on Thu, 13 December 2012, 14:59:43
This whole thread is now well past stupid.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 15:00:33
Well it's an MW thread. Troll-bait.

I was trying to have a serious debate but ended up feeding a troll. Oh well.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Thu, 13 December 2012, 15:03:26
Aside from defending (poorly) that democracy is the lesser of two evils

Right...

an argument which legitimizes not only evil but also statism, tyranny, war, murder, etc.

lulwut?

"keyboardlover: 1+1 = 3"

If that doesn't make you programmed, then it makes you evil.

Oh dear.

"keyboardlover: 3 = 9999323495r4854857"

Ah, the old "label the person disagreeing a troll" cliche. Didn't I have to call you out on that in the other thread as well?
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 15:07:10
If you can refute the argument, then refute it dude. You are defending "democracy" (which isn't even a real thing; the closest thing to a true democracy is arguably an anarcho-syndicalist society such as that which rose from the ashes of the Spanish Revolution and lasted nearly three years before being destroyed by force). That system was likely the closest thing to a true democracy that the world has known up until this point. But what you are REALLY defending, is a gang of thieves and murderers writ large, and I really do not believe that you have the ability to refute that fact.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Thu, 13 December 2012, 15:07:44
keyboardlover, you fail and fail and fail in every debate you get into. You start out with an extreme position to begin with, then when challenged you simply repeat the same assertions with nothing to back them up, then you claim the other side has yet to refute your arguments, start demanding "sources" despite offering none of your own, and then when you get really desperate you haul out all the old Internet argument favourites, like calling them a troll, personal attacks, changing the topic of debate, etc. etc. It's embarrassing.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 15:08:29
Stop telling me that I "fail", and refute my well-explained, clear arguments, you troll.

There is only one person here this is embarrassing for, and it ain't me dude.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Thu, 13 December 2012, 15:10:47
Whatever you say, princess.

well-explained, clear arguments

*stifles laughter*
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 15:12:28
If you could, then you would.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Thu, 13 December 2012, 15:14:41
keyboardlover: "refute my arguments [baseless assertions would be a more accurate term however]"

Malphas: "OK *refutes "arguments"*"

keyboardlover: "See, you can't! If you could you would!"
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 15:20:56
keyboardlover: "refute my arguments [baseless assertions would be a more accurate term however]"

Malphas: "OK *refutes "arguments"*"

keyboardlover: "See, you can't! If you could you would!"


If that was what actually happened, then that would be what actually happened! :D

And you think I'm the one living in a fantasy world?? Dude, put the Kool Aid down!
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: metalliqaz on Thu, 13 December 2012, 18:06:44
Why is there so much god damn politics in my keyboard forum?  True believers will never be convinced.  Both of you should give up.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 18:10:55
Only those who seek truth shall find it.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: metalliqaz on Thu, 13 December 2012, 18:20:32
Depends on which truth you seek.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Lanx on Thu, 13 December 2012, 20:38:17
Yeah, but take a trip to the Durand Line or Somalia and see how great the alternative is. Shouldn't you be past the contrarian teenager level of half-baked ideology by your age? Although Lanx is far worse, admittedly, who's ideology seems to be based on G.I. Joe cartoons and Reagan-era action moves.

reagan was president for a third of my life, he's got a carrier named after him and he paved the way for the collapse of the berlin wall and russia, what''s wrong with that? i mean if that also included the collapse of the dividing line between north and south korea, then i guess we wouldn't have Gunganm Style tho.

And what's wrong with GI joe? a cartoon with multi-level-cultural diversity heck i'm even assuming shipwrek was a gay sailor, for no other reason than sterotype.

I'm even excited for the next gi joe movie, yea that's right i said it gi joe the movie wasn't bad, too bad they really portraying asians in a positive light, other than super kung fu master's of snake eyes and storm shadow. I mean they gave the role of Jinx to a french atress, who is somewhat asian looking i would say her eyes, but being Jinx means that that's the part they have to cover up!

I mean if we have to see what was wrong with the movie (2009) obviously the first big red flag is of course the wayan's brother, ugh he just ruins every movie, he's basically a not funny version of jackie chan's chris tucker, yea it's the truth, chris tucker is known as the black guy from jackie chan's rush hour, or the "the black comedian, the other chris, not chris rock, you know the screaming girl guy from 5th element".
Then we'll go with channing tatum i guess he makes a serviceable DUKE, i mean duke as a character was the worst character in GI.joe anyway, which is odd since he kinda is GI, joe, but i guess he's just supposed to be the boring blah all american blond kid.
then they put these 2 idiots in horrible cgi suits and make them dance around in paris... ugh, oh all the while the wayan's brother says "WOOAH" every 10minutes when an action scene happens.

You know what, make your own edited gi joe (2009) movie, just take edit out all the scenes with these two idiots and it would have been a great movie with more action than sleepy "the dark knight rises".

I mean what do you have? ok ok you have stupid ray park, ugh darth maul, but! he doesn't talk! and he wears a mask the whole time! essentially he's an overpaid stunt double!, hey that's not a bad compromise. (for reasons why ray park sucks, watch darth maul prance around for a while, and then rewatch him try to act as toad in xmen movie 1)

Then what do you have left, you have covergirl, being a secretary for dennis quaid, i mean how awesome is that. Covergirl being a worthless character, they thought, hey she's a model, what skills do models have? nothing! let's just make her a secretary next to the awesome dennis quaid.

then you goto cobra, the best part of gi joe! how did that happen?

sienna miller, i don't know who this girl is, but she makes a great baroness, she probably makes one of the best female villians ever, not cuz she looks good as an aside but cuz she acted great! too bad they had to do the horrible thing of redeeming her character and ultimately destroying the baroness

lee-byung hun, saw him in a movie before gi joe and he does storm shadow good enough, he's korean oh whatever as long as he can pass for asian hollywood doesn't care, and he's pretty good, even has had an action drama (iris) after gi joe, his english is really good (i have heard FAR WORSE english from a variety of asian actors, that make me cringe and want to cry) he looks good as storm shadow and my wife says he's hot, he passes, is he the main bad guy? lol.

some guy as destroy, blah blah

pre-inception and only known as the 3rd rock from the sun kid, joseph gordon levitt? eh

again fast-forward all the scenes of the horrible duo, fast-forward all the horrible flashback scenes of the horrible duo and baroness/JGL, and fast-forward all the flashback scenes of storm shadow/snake eyes. You get a great film!

what were we talking about again? cuz i think gi-joe was more interesting. oh yea the 2013 gi joe

no baroness? ugh
no scarlett? (eh she sucked anyway)
no dennis quid? what?
no after inception and looper JGL? what

so we get a new director,
jon chu? wtf? he does dance movies, i haven't seen a single one, cuz i assume they suck (and i have watch every season of ABDC, best crews are jabba, kabba modern, qwest, and the show has sucked every since shane sparks got arrested for being a pedo, stupid! he was such a great commentator ugh) and i assume he only got the job cuz of his connections with channing tatum, but... who knows he might be good, storyline sounds re-worked to be grittier.

we get storm shadow at least, but ugh with storm shadow we have to suffer with horrible ray park.

the rock? wtf, he's the rock

the rza? wtf omg he makes me so mad!, i saw the iron fist movie...ugh "rza, why you make horrible movies and star in them? just make music, you bad actor, no get to act! rap ok, kung fu bad"

and then action favorite bruce willis, i'm sorry but unless he isn't saying "yippee ka ya" in a movie that doesn't have kevin smith or co-staring with the "i'm a mac" kid and he's just the "cool guy", he's gotta do some action.

oh yea gi joe

gi joe is great!
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: tjcaustin on Thu, 13 December 2012, 20:58:54
Da fuq I just read?
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Thu, 13 December 2012, 21:02:46
(http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/850098_o.gif)
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: clickclack on Fri, 14 December 2012, 14:14:47
Well it's an MW thread. Troll-bait.

I was trying to have a serious debate but ended up feeding a troll. Oh well.
First part, a given.
Second part, ironic.
MW- dusts hands off, walks away, "my job here is done".
XD
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: microsoft windows on Fri, 14 December 2012, 17:35:38
My job here will never be done. ;) [Insert Evil Laugh Here]
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: keyboardlover on Fri, 14 December 2012, 22:59:02
And that is why I love MW...
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: microsoft windows on Fri, 06 September 2013, 12:42:28
So how do you all feel about Obama and Syria now?
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: SpAmRaY on Fri, 06 September 2013, 12:47:58
So how do you all feel about Obama and Syria now?

[attachimg=1]
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Thimplum on Fri, 06 September 2013, 12:58:05
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse iaculis tortor at dolor dapibus, sit amet scelerisque magna bibendum. Duis pretium, velit quis faucibus eleifend, augue metus tincidunt libero, id pulvinar tortor elit eu odio. Nullam dictum ligula quis turpis lobortis bibendum. Pellentesque ut ligula sit amet elit iaculis rutrum a non nunc. Nulla feugiat mauris non dui egestas, id pulvinar nunc aliquam. Vivamus faucibus lacus non gravida facilisis. Vivamus ornare blandit sollicitudin. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae;

Fusce a nulla eget libero venenatis tincidunt. Nunc a hendrerit arcu, sed ultricies turpis. Nam condimentum mauris lorem, at varius turpis dictum vulputate. Donec porttitor velit fringilla, tincidunt tellus id, ornare arcu. Phasellus in diam nunc. Sed suscipit ante vitae gravida commodo. Ut a libero tincidunt, posuere libero a, laoreet nisl. Aliquam erat volutpat. Nulla facilisi. Nulla ac neque vitae orci ultricies cursus.

Curabitur faucibus ante in dui vehicula, a congue diam adipiscing. Maecenas facilisis sem sed faucibus congue. Cras ullamcorper felis in turpis pretium pharetra. Suspendisse facilisis ante ac purus tempus accumsan. Nunc erat urna, auctor aliquam ligula in, dapibus convallis tortor. In in neque dignissim, lacinia quam et, interdum tellus. Maecenas tincidunt tempus ornare. Vivamus eu nulla dictum, scelerisque purus sodales, interdum risus. Donec ultrices sodales nisl egestas commodo. Nam tristique metus ac est vulputate, quis mattis metus fringilla. Nunc feugiat turpis id mi sollicitudin mattis. Donec rhoncus, nisi ut laoreet tincidunt, massa sem sodales quam, in suscipit tortor tellus non lectus. Suspendisse eu faucibus enim, nec gravida leo. Phasellus facilisis in ante vel condimentum. Aenean ultricies arcu elit, dignissim luctus felis mattis in. Nullam scelerisque, leo et condimentum posuere, lorem quam elementum est, a porttitor lectus est tristique urna.

Proin varius lectus id diam posuere euismod. Aliquam cursus viverra sapien, in tincidunt ante condimentum id. Sed ultricies sem sed sem faucibus pulvinar. Morbi viverra lorem vitae vehicula suscipit. Phasellus massa ante, varius eget metus sit amet, iaculis aliquam lorem. Proin nec elit a mi scelerisque vehicula. Proin non malesuada augue. Duis mattis metus elit, ac viverra leo auctor non. Suspendisse semper nunc ac ante porttitor sodales sed sit amet tellus. Fusce sagittis ante nec consectetur euismod. Nam tincidunt lectus eu ante ornare, eget sollicitudin odio aliquet. Nunc fermentum vel sem et venenatis. Suspendisse non sapien nec augue dapibus viverra. Nulla quis accumsan sem. Nam eu nulla in odio consectetur vulputate. Vivamus in tortor non lectus pulvinar hendrerit.

Cras adipiscing, dolor vel sodales adipiscing, lorem lacus lacinia felis, ultrices bibendum felis odio aliquet velit. Ut sed justo suscipit, bibendum elit tincidunt, condimentum velit. Etiam sodales velit id felis congue, vel porttitor dolor varius. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Curabitur sit amet imperdiet est. Maecenas sit amet mauris facilisis diam dignissim condimentum. Morbi tellus risus, aliquam nec lectus a, imperdiet imperdiet lorem. Quisque vestibulum tincidunt feugiat. Cras commodo scelerisque metus eu cursus. Aenean ac neque nibh.

Maecenas venenatis nec enim id tincidunt. Phasellus nec sapien interdum, bibendum diam in, eleifend tellus. Duis nulla nulla, dignissim et lectus id, fermentum mattis nisi. Aliquam ultrices adipiscing tellus vel egestas. Morbi malesuada risus sodales venenatis gravida. Duis ut dui sed elit luctus sagittis. Donec in metus accumsan, dictum ante a, luctus neque. Aenean vulputate, nisl et volutpat ultrices, magna nibh blandit sapien, eu suscipit velit lacus quis risus. Mauris tincidunt rutrum pellentesque. Proin sit amet pulvinar magna. Aenean auctor sodales magna, nec suscipit metus dapibus nec. Sed quis tellus vitae tellus suscipit vehicula in vel erat. Nunc sem nisl, scelerisque id quam eu, lacinia fermentum lectus. Nulla sodales, ante in tristique vestibulum, nulla justo consectetur dui, ac venenatis ligula tortor vitae mauris.

Aliquam vitae justo elit. Mauris in velit auctor, congue purus sed, pulvinar justo. Ut laoreet risus at sollicitudin pharetra. Phasellus metus risus, semper in commodo nec, ornare et augue. Praesent quis egestas nisi. Phasellus sed porttitor dui, a varius enim. Cras dignissim velit a bibendum scelerisque. Aliquam suscipit erat quis tortor auctor, ac rutrum eros semper. Phasellus enim lectus, pharetra eu vulputate vel, imperdiet ac metus. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum iaculis eros velit, quis venenatis nulla pellentesque vitae. Donec sem libero, sagittis sed augue dapibus, accumsan feugiat ante. Pellentesque vel dolor quis ante aliquam volutpat. Sed id lectus et ipsum aliquet bibendum ut sed magna.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur eu odio quam. Ut vulputate mauris ut porta volutpat. Praesent congue commodo ante, vel euismod enim dapibus vitae. Curabitur posuere mauris eget neque sagittis, ac dignissim odio adipiscing. Vivamus vehicula mauris vitae augue cursus mollis. Praesent cursus euismod purus, et elementum elit vestibulum id. Nunc faucibus diam non euismod sodales. Proin vel lorem id leo tristique viverra quis eget purus. Aliquam fermentum faucibus lorem quis rutrum. Sed eleifend vehicula enim, vel iaculis erat convallis non. Pellentesque vel elementum mi. Fusce aliquet adipiscing ultricies. Mauris dignissim sollicitudin leo eu vehicula. Vestibulum ullamcorper porttitor congue. Sed ut erat at leo sollicitudin vulputate nec a dolor.

Sed non neque accumsan, laoreet urna sit amet, dictum justo. Donec elit justo, pellentesque vel risus dapibus, semper ultrices odio. Praesent vel elit nibh. Aliquam sagittis lacinia iaculis. Integer bibendum volutpat aliquam. Aenean a nisi nec tortor pellentesque dictum. Nam risus nisl, dignissim quis molestie convallis, ultrices ac nibh. Nulla in semper augue. Mauris quis enim vel lectus rhoncus fermentum. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Vivamus gravida faucibus metus sed pretium. Praesent lacinia gravida tortor nec egestas. Curabitur eget quam est. Mauris mauris nibh, laoreet fermentum gravida id, venenatis eget mauris. Nulla facilisi.

Quisque sem libero, sagittis nec dictum nec, consequat vitae libero. Nam sed rhoncus est. Quisque vehicula lectus egestas sapien vestibulum, at malesuada enim placerat. Donec eget eros sapien. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Duis gravida, sem eu ultrices tempus, turpis nulla semper neque, at commodo est nibh et nisi. Fusce in orci luctus, consectetur massa nec, dictum arcu. Proin non diam blandit, tincidunt nulla quis, bibendum nulla. Maecenas nec risus consequat felis varius convallis a vel est. In cursus eget est a laoreet. Aliquam ut adipiscing risus, at dignissim augue. Aliquam congue, elit ut dapibus faucibus, lacus mauris hendrerit sem, quis varius ante tellus at felis. Maecenas vel auctor eros, id tincidunt sapien. Etiam semper cursus diam, quis pellentesque est porttitor nec. Suspendisse sem mi, rutrum non nisi nec, scelerisque aliquam mauris. Cras ac ipsum arcu.

Nam massa orci, porttitor sed laoreet vel, fermentum molestie ipsum. Donec lacinia urna metus, id luctus leo mollis in. Cras non pulvinar nunc. Fusce condimentum ac tellus eget porta. Quisque rutrum egestas mauris non dapibus. Praesent vestibulum non diam quis lacinia. Donec hendrerit purus non lacus auctor mattis. Duis ut arcu nibh. Nam et facilisis dolor.

Suspendisse potenti. Integer eleifend, odio ac varius fermentum, felis diam dapibus leo, quis congue mauris nunc nec ligula. Ut velit nisi, lobortis non justo non, laoreet lobortis diam. Vivamus a aliquet sapien. Praesent auctor sollicitudin lorem, ac egestas purus sodales at. Aenean rutrum rutrum justo, vel pretium nisl sodales non. Nunc blandit bibendum gravida. Nulla dapibus ipsum leo, nec cursus elit dignissim at.

Praesent vel sollicitudin nisl. Cras at porta nibh. Suspendisse et dolor lacinia, lacinia nisi dignissim, faucibus arcu. Nullam sed eleifend ligula, in rhoncus est. Cras ac sollicitudin mi. Sed porta porttitor rutrum. Ut vel auctor augue.

Praesent magna arcu, bibendum sit amet luctus vitae, adipiscing non magna. Aenean id mauris nec mauris laoreet dignissim non quis tortor. Nulla quis mollis elit. Morbi ultricies tempor diam, sed gravida magna egestas eu. Aliquam non urna quis justo volutpat egestas. Integer eu vehicula turpis. Maecenas lobortis non dui in consectetur. In vel velit sit amet erat rhoncus posuere nec eu purus. Vivamus eu quam non leo tristique ornare sed dapibus lacus.

FTFY!
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: unnatural on Fri, 06 September 2013, 13:05:41
Obama and the liberal media trying to take my guns and freedom away!
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: microsoft windows on Fri, 06 September 2013, 13:32:10
I
  THINK
            THAT
                    IF
                       THE
                             SYRIANS
                                          JUST
                                                  USED
                                                           WINDOWS
                                                                           98
                                                                               THEN
                                                                                       THEY'D
                                                                                                  QUIT
                                                                                                          IT
                                                                                                             WITH
                                                                                                                     THIS
                                                                                                                            WAR
                                                                                                                                   AND
                                                                                                                                          JUST
                                                                                                                                                  GET
                                                                                                                                                        ANGRY
                                                                                                                                                                   AT
                                                                                                                                                                       THEIR
                                                                                                                                                                                COMPUTERS
                                                                                                                                                                                                  INSTEAD.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: SpAmRaY on Fri, 06 September 2013, 14:04:48
I
  THINK
            THAT
                    IF
                       THE
                             SYRIANS
                                          JUST
                                                  USED
                                                           WINDOWS
                                                                           8
                                                                               THEN
                                                                                       THEY'D
                                                                                                  QUIT
                                                                                                          IT
                                                                                                             WITH
                                                                                                                     THIS
                                                                                                                            WAR
                                                                                                                                   AND
                                                                                                                                          JUST
                                                                                                                                                  GET
                                                                                                                                                        ANGRY
                                                                                                                                                                   AT
                                                                                                                                                                       THEIR
                                                                                                                                                                                COMPUTERS
                                                                                                                                                                                                  INSTEAD.

FTFY!
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Thimplum on Fri, 06 September 2013, 15:49:50
Much bveter
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Glod on Fri, 06 September 2013, 15:51:26
This is all bull****, I never really liked Obama; I do support generally democrats as i consider myself a center-left independent, but this Syrian thing is ****ing bull****; We don't have the money, we don't the international support, and we don't have the national security justification. Somebody take his Nobel peace prize away please.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: iAmAhab on Fri, 06 September 2013, 16:17:33
So when has that stopped you guys in the past?
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: vun on Fri, 06 September 2013, 16:20:53
When has a political thread brought anything good? Does anyone really expect any good to come of this? It's like a "mac vs pc" thread; there is no way anything good will ever come from it. And even if some good were to come from one, it would be totally irrelevant compared to the amount of flame and arguing these threads bring.

Not saying discussing politics shouldn't be done, and those not wanting to participate can just ignore the thread, but I'm curios as to what those who do participate think will come out of it.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Glod on Fri, 06 September 2013, 16:27:10
i dont think anything will come of it lol; just venting because i mostly work from home so i have no "water cooler" talk. If anyone has any feels from my post or any post here they may want to remind themselves they are on the internet.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: noisyturtle on Fri, 06 September 2013, 16:52:25
penises
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Thimplum on Fri, 06 September 2013, 16:53:45
stop
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: noisyturtle on Fri, 06 September 2013, 16:55:07
vaginas
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Thimplum on Fri, 06 September 2013, 16:56:40
stop warning 2
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: noisyturtle on Fri, 06 September 2013, 17:23:01
i didn't realize you were an admin
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Thimplum on Fri, 06 September 2013, 19:28:24
That's what the report button is for :)
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Fri, 06 September 2013, 19:32:51
Shut up, Thimplum.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Malphas on Fri, 06 September 2013, 19:36:55
So how do you all feel about Obama and Syria now?

As long as the government of the country I live in stays out of it (which in a shock turn of events it is, due to the Commons vote) I couldn't care less what Obama/America/Syria/Russia/the UN get up to.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: tp4tissue on Fri, 06 September 2013, 19:42:54
Guys,, Obama is just 1 man.. He's a representative.. He does not at all make decisions alone..

More accurately you are complaining about the Obama Administration, where Obama is the leader.


You can not so simply h8 on Obama (1 dude) like this.. There are numerous other forces, some even more powerful than Obama himself within the Administration that affect change.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: Thimplum on Fri, 06 September 2013, 19:43:56
Guys,, Obama is just 1 man.. He's a representative.. He does not at all make decisions alone..

More accurately you are complaining about the Obama Administration, where Obama is the leader.


You can not so simply h8 on Obama (1 dude) like this.. There are numerous other forces, some even more powerful than Obama himself within the Administration that affect change.

^this^ soooo much

Title: Re: Obama
Post by: tp4tissue on Fri, 06 September 2013, 19:52:55
Guys,, Obama is just 1 man.. He's a representative.. He does not at all make decisions alone..

More accurately you are complaining about the Obama Administration, where Obama is the leader.


You can not so simply h8 on Obama (1 dude) like this.. There are numerous other forces, some even more powerful than Obama himself within the Administration that affect change.

^this^ soooo much



Now let's talk about how if Obama had an Ergodox...

People would like him more.. (http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion_custom/th_aji.gif)
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: noisyturtle on Fri, 06 September 2013, 21:59:26
He looks almost as good as Putin without his shirt.
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: davkol on Sat, 07 September 2013, 03:29:49
Does he ride a bear?
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: iri on Sat, 07 September 2013, 08:33:01
He looks almost as good as Putin without his shirt.
oh noes
http://www.tomatobubble.com/putin_obama.html
Title: Re: Obama
Post by: SpAmRaY on Sat, 07 September 2013, 08:37:17
Guys,, Obama is just 1 man.. He's a representative.. He does not at all make decisions alone..

More accurately you are complaining about the Obama Administration, where Obama is the leader.


You can not so simply h8 on Obama (1 dude) like this.. There are numerous other forces, some even more powerful than Obama himself within the Administration that affect change.

He looks almost as good as Putin without his shirt.
oh noes
http://www.tomatobubble.com/putin_obama.html

you win, putin is a bad@$$