| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Tppz!
Germany1449 Posts
On November 18 2012 00:21 kafkaesque wrote: ![[image loading]](http://img.pr0gramm.com/2012/11/8191317327-5180e95d98-c.jpg) Could this possibly be real? Your president is such a cool dude... who is the girl? nvm found her. dont know why its "cool" exactly but ok! | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
On November 18 2012 00:52 Tppz! wrote: who is the girl? nvm found her. dont know why its "cool" exactly but ok! It's McKayla Maroney, olympic gymnast. When she got silver instead of gold (her own fault, no controversy), she mad that face on the medal stand. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
On November 18 2012 00:21 kafkaesque wrote: + Show Spoiler + Could this possibly be real? Your president is such a cool dude... It's real, it came up on my facebook an hour ago ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/o7djI.png) I think that's why Republicans don't understand. The young vote doesn't always agree with is policies but President Obama acts like a fucking human being instead of a political robot. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On November 18 2012 00:51 radiatoren wrote: It seems that the republicans are moving towards a new way to catch young voters: In a Republican study report on copyright they are going very far in the direction of limiting it, arguing that it is not a free market mechanism, it was created to benifit the public and not just the artist and that copyright doesn't create the best regime for innovation and productivity. It suggests very interesting policies to pursue an improvement; Statutory damage reform - I thought they had fought this adamently earlier? Expanding fair use Punishing false infringement claims Limit the terms of copyright and possibility for renewal It is far too early to judge how much influence this will have on the actual republican policy in the area, but it is definately an issue many young people care a lot about and the suggestions are pretty much up the same alley as the pirate parties in the rest of the world! Link Sadly they retracted this report within 24 hrs. Lobbyists > youths. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121117/16492521084/hollywood-lobbyists-have-busy-saturday-convince-gop-to-retract-copyright-reform-brief.shtml | ||
|
sambo400
United States378 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On November 18 2012 10:59 sambo400 wrote: Who cares the president supports the annihilation of Israel, he takes funny pictures! What? | ||
|
kmillz
United States1548 Posts
He obviously doesn't know what he is talkign about, also insert the word "if" between "cares" and "the" and what he said makes more sense. If you are going to make absurd claims please provide a source to back it up at least. | ||
|
sambo400
United States378 Posts
On November 18 2012 11:08 kmillz wrote: He obviously doesn't know what he is talkign about, also insert the word "if" between "cares" and "the" and what he said makes more sense. If you are going to make absurd claims please provide a source to back it up at least. I thought it was common knowledge by now. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-19/politics/obama.israel.palestinians_1_israel-palestinian-conflict-borders-settlements?_s=PM:POLITICS | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On November 18 2012 11:09 sambo400 wrote: I thought it was common knowledge by now. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-19/politics/obama.israel.palestinians_1_israel-palestinian-conflict-borders-settlements?_s=PM:POLITICS That in no way backs up your statement, by any margin, not even close. Also, it's old. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/israel-gaza-obama_n_2147745.html http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/15/us-dealing-with-new-islamist-egypt-struggles-to-deal-with-israeli-palestinian/ Obama supports a land invasion of Gaza. Kind of sounds like the opposite of what you were saying. edit: You also might want to consider that it's your kind of over-the-top exaggeration that helps give Israel an image of being unreasonable. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On November 18 2012 11:09 sambo400 wrote: I thought it was common knowledge by now. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-19/politics/obama.israel.palestinians_1_israel-palestinian-conflict-borders-settlements?_s=PM:POLITICS So. "Obama supports a viable two state solution" in Republican eyes is "OBAMA WANTS TO ANNIHILATE ISREAL WITH HIS MUSLIM KENYAN KOMMUNISM!" User was warned for this post User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
Anyway I think this really would be better suited in the corresponding thread for the conflict -_- | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On November 18 2012 19:35 Probe1 wrote: The Huffington Post is trashy as fuck. President Obama says Israel has a right to self defense? He must support a ground offensive! Anyway I think this really would be better suited in the corresponding thread for the conflict -_- The article is straight-forward, and by all appearances, Obama does not oppose a ground offensive from Israel. Toner added that "the onus is on Hamas" to draw down the conflict This was at the point when it was well-known that Israel was gearing up for a possible ground invasion. If Obama disagrees with a ground invasion then he should state it now, as opposed to, y'know, after-the-fact. Say what you want about the Huff, but the article isn't making any assumptions. Not agreeing or disagreeing with it, but there it is. Also, I posted the article in direct response to a false accusation about the President's position. -_- | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On November 18 2012 19:35 Probe1 wrote: The Huffington Post is trashy as fuck. President Obama says Israel has a right to self defense? He must support a ground offensive! Anyway I think this really would be better suited in the corresponding thread for the conflict -_- How did the HuffPo become even remotely relevant in this world? It's more biased than Fox News, hires trashy writers, and reports more propaganda than news. Like, I get that was the point for it's creation... but how do people take it seriously? It's not supposed to be taken seriously... | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On November 18 2012 21:58 BluePanther wrote: How did the HuffPo become even remotely relevant in this world? It's more biased than Fox News, hires trashy writers, and reports more propaganda than news. Like, I get that was the point for it's creation... but how do people take it seriously? It's not supposed to be taken seriously... It's not more biased than Fox News, as it's more honest with what bias it does have. Which isn't saying much. I'm not a particular fan, it was the first article that came up in a Google search. If I'd known it was a controversy to use a straight-forward article from the Huffington Post, I'd've found another source, regardless that it'd say the exact same thing. | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
If you want to sit around and rub crystal balls with the lot of them you'll look very impressive to fools that couldn't see the magic behind an educated guess. You can come here and preach that I was wrong and you were right and the fools will love you for it. We'll both know, and those with intellects measuring in buckets instead of drops will know, that you were and are full of shit if you hazard incredible guesses and call your conjecture credible conclusions. Remember how the vast majority of news corporations were completely discordant with reality just two weeks ago? Every 'poll' was looking like Romney or a dead heat between the two candidates? Remember what happened? I don't want to make a massive argument over this but if the source is as credible as the Huffington Post then I feel obligated to speak up and say I do not trust this site to deliver accurate and objective news without conjecture, hypothesizing or embellishments to entertain. My personal rule of thumb? If I haven't previously vetted a news source as reliable to the satisfaction of my own terms and that news source appears on reddit/worldnews then it is more than likely complete bollucks. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On November 19 2012 00:33 Probe1 wrote: Look, the bottom line is if you read the Huffington Post or Fox News or whatever junk food infotainment outlet you prefer- you deserve to be lied to. The article made no mention of Obama explicitly saying he supported a ground offensive at that time. Although a ground offensive looks almost certain at this point and I doubt the President would condemn it- he did not say it at the time of the article and it is not a journalists job to predict what others will do. A journalist reports what others have done. If you want to sit around and rub crystal balls with the lot of them you'll look very impressive to fools that couldn't see the magic behind an educated guess. You can come here and preach that I was wrong and you were right and the fools will love you for it. We'll both know, and those with intellects measuring in buckets instead of drops will know, that you were and are full of shit if you hazard incredible guesses and call your conjecture credible conclusions. Remember how the vast majority of news corporations were completely discordant with reality just two weeks ago? Every 'poll' was looking like Romney or a dead heat between the two candidates? Remember what happened? I don't want to make a massive argument over this but if the source is as credible as the Huffington Post then I feel obligated to speak up and say I do not trust this site to deliver accurate and objective news without conjecture, hypothesizing or embellishments to entertain. My personal rule of thumb? If I haven't previously vetted a news source as reliable to the satisfaction of my own terms and that news source appears on reddit/worldnews then it is more than likely complete bollucks. Okay. Please quote me where in that article the writer claims Obama is endorsing a ground invasion. What part of the article do you disagree with? Exactly? Good luck, because the vast majority of the article is simply official quotes of government officials, with little conjecture in between. However at this point, not opposing a ground invasion at the brink of a ground invasion -- and saying that the "onus" is on the country being invaded to not be invaded -- is about as good as an endorsement. But that's not the article, that's just me talking. You want to criticize the Huffington Post, have at it. The particular article I linked was pretty straight-forward, and I posted it in a direct response to a false statement. Try hard. You can come here and preach that I was wrong and you were right and the fools will love you for it. We'll both know, and those with intellects measuring in buckets instead of drops will know, that you were and are full of shit if you hazard incredible guesses and call your conjecture credible conclusions.  I'm hardly preaching. I posted an article, you criticized it with no specifics. I defended the premise that the article was straight-forward enough to make my point.You're being incendiary, you're being preachy. I feel the buckets of intellect will vindicate me on that. Also, nice language. "Trashy as fuck". | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
Have a nice day. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On November 19 2012 01:00 Probe1 wrote: Dude I don't know who the fuck you are but the only person that is going to care about what you're writing is me. Since you just spent about 300 words degrading me I'm not exactly inclined to respond to your message. If you want to masturbate to your own opinions have at it but don't ask me to watch and tell you what good form you have. Have a nice day. Next time you criticize an article, criticize the article, not the source. Simple. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On November 18 2012 02:54 Probe1 wrote: It's real, it came up on my facebook an hour ago+ Show Spoiler + I think that's why Republicans don't understand. The young vote doesn't always agree with is policies but President Obama acts like a fucking human being instead of a political robot. actually he talks in a monotone, never changes pitch or cadence, and falls on his face without a teleprompter... tbh, he's one of the worst public speakers in politics right now (major figure). but the media says he's cool and Beyonce invited him to a party so I guess he's cool. personally, I think jobs and opportunity are cool, but I guess I'm just the turd in the punchbowl here... edit: stupid me, why should I care about runaway debt when the President "gets me"? | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
MaxPax vs Rogue
Clem vs Bunny
WardiTV Team League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Patches Events
BSL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
ByuN vs SHIN
Maru vs Krystianer
WardiTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
