In America we're about to have a great capitalist revolution of innovation.
Here's what's stopping us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXTN3h-b9nU
The kind of people that made fun of me for being a retard my whole life.
This revolution is coming from the bottom up and it is not forcing any "Hate speech" laws.
America is just coming back to the time when we all wanted the greatest good for the greatest number.
But because I play World of Warcraft, I am a faggot and can't stand up for my country becauseI don't have a gun. Didn't know that, Hitler 2.0!!!!!
Anyone voting McCain should now be asked to reason it. Even Knights of Columbus are breaking rights. Fuck yes.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Who Lies More?
Obama, McCain, Palin, Biden.
Obama:
I haven't gone through all of these, but I might do something in a few days.
Basically, Obama is VERY honest for a politican. I will call True/Mostly True/Half True Truth, and Barely True/False/Pants on Fire a lie.
So Obama
True: 73.7%
False: 26.3%
This looks good, so I will now do McCain.
Pants on Fire, are of course, the worst. It means a complete lie intentionally done. False may not be as intentional.
McCain:
True: 56.7%
Lie: 43.3%
So, the old adage about Politicians lying all the time is false, but Obama is significantly more honest than McCain.
Let me put it this way. It may not be that big of a difference, but theoretically, the odd of two Obama statements being true is 54.3% (73.3% squared), that is two statements. Almost as much as McCain's 1 true. Two McCain statements being true is a lot less. Only 32.1%.
The difference is less than 20% but in the long run it matters.
Now I will do the VP, but this is unfair to Biden because it includes anything he said over the entire primary season and Palin JUST entered the race.
Palin so far cannot be analyzed. They keep the woman silent for good reason. I mean she is a woman. Just kidding. There are female Republican senators. It's because she's a dumb hockey mom who doesn't know shit.
She's only made 8 statements and all of them are in the True range. That is not enough to measure. I will admit I am biased, but I'd say you'd need close to 100 to get a good idea.
She has flopped on Global Warming (or McCain told her, you're for fixing it or GTFO the Gay talk Express.") And on the bridge to nowhere.
Get it, Gay opposite of straight? :-P
Now Biden.
Actually, Biden has not had enough statements, but from what I saw he leaned toward the True side.
But Obama is more honest than McCain, and that gap will widen as McCain continues to let his campaign write his ads and put his "I approve that message" on them when he may not actually approve them himself, but decided to just let the Dark Lords take over and go against his old ways of being a good person and honest man.
In a monthi I will post an update to this and see who is being more honest.
And one more.
Chain emails.
True: 23%
False: 77%
So question for you. McCain and Obama each say three things, and a chain email says one. Who do you trust.
Obama: 40%
McCain: 18.2%
As you can see, Obama's gap becomes more important. If Obama tells you 3 things, there is a 40% chance that ALL THREE are true. it's late, so I won't do binomial probability here, but I will do a bit more.
Even at 4 statements, Obama is more likely to be true ALL FOUR TIMES than one chain email!
And at 5 statements, he's at 21.7%, just barely below one chain email.
This is important to people who care. All these claims are documented and graded.
Obama also has never had a Pants on Fire moment, meaning he doesn't make obvious horrible lies like McCain does. The Palin chain emails do, but that is not related to Obama. Blaming Obama for MoveOn is like blaming McCain for FreeRepublic.
Sorry for the blogs. I love Obama and people need to realize he really is different. Think about it. If I were to bet on 4 things being true said by Obama (all four) vs one chain email being true, it'd be wise to bet on Obama.
The straight talk express derailed. McCain is a bitter old man who realized that he couldn't be a moderate sane person and win the election. It's sad.
Obama:
- True 39 (39) 34.2%
- Mostly True 24 (24) 21.1%
- Half True 21 (21) 18.4%
- Barely True 12 (12) 10.5%
- False 18 (18) 15.8%
- Pants on Fire
I haven't gone through all of these, but I might do something in a few days.
Basically, Obama is VERY honest for a politican. I will call True/Mostly True/Half True Truth, and Barely True/False/Pants on Fire a lie.
So Obama
True: 73.7%
False: 26.3%
This looks good, so I will now do McCain.
- True 25 (25) 22.1%
- Mostly True 20 (20) 17.7%
- Half True 19 (19) 16.8%
- Barely True 21 (21) 18.6%
- False 22 (22) 19.5%
- Pants on Fire 6 0.5%
Pants on Fire, are of course, the worst. It means a complete lie intentionally done. False may not be as intentional.
McCain:
True: 56.7%
Lie: 43.3%
So, the old adage about Politicians lying all the time is false, but Obama is significantly more honest than McCain.
Let me put it this way. It may not be that big of a difference, but theoretically, the odd of two Obama statements being true is 54.3% (73.3% squared), that is two statements. Almost as much as McCain's 1 true. Two McCain statements being true is a lot less. Only 32.1%.
The difference is less than 20% but in the long run it matters.
Now I will do the VP, but this is unfair to Biden because it includes anything he said over the entire primary season and Palin JUST entered the race.
Palin so far cannot be analyzed. They keep the woman silent for good reason. I mean she is a woman. Just kidding. There are female Republican senators. It's because she's a dumb hockey mom who doesn't know shit.
She's only made 8 statements and all of them are in the True range. That is not enough to measure. I will admit I am biased, but I'd say you'd need close to 100 to get a good idea.
She has flopped on Global Warming (or McCain told her, you're for fixing it or GTFO the Gay talk Express.") And on the bridge to nowhere.
Get it, Gay opposite of straight? :-P
Now Biden.
Actually, Biden has not had enough statements, but from what I saw he leaned toward the True side.
But Obama is more honest than McCain, and that gap will widen as McCain continues to let his campaign write his ads and put his "I approve that message" on them when he may not actually approve them himself, but decided to just let the Dark Lords take over and go against his old ways of being a good person and honest man.
In a monthi I will post an update to this and see who is being more honest.
And one more.
Chain emails.
- True 2 (2) 5.1%
- Mostly True 5 (5) 12.8%
- Half True 2 (2) 5.1%
- Barely True 3 (3) 7.6%
- False 16 (16) 41%
- Pants on Fire 11 28.2%
True: 23%
False: 77%
So question for you. McCain and Obama each say three things, and a chain email says one. Who do you trust.
Obama: 40%
McCain: 18.2%
As you can see, Obama's gap becomes more important. If Obama tells you 3 things, there is a 40% chance that ALL THREE are true. it's late, so I won't do binomial probability here, but I will do a bit more.
Even at 4 statements, Obama is more likely to be true ALL FOUR TIMES than one chain email!
And at 5 statements, he's at 21.7%, just barely below one chain email.
This is important to people who care. All these claims are documented and graded.
Obama also has never had a Pants on Fire moment, meaning he doesn't make obvious horrible lies like McCain does. The Palin chain emails do, but that is not related to Obama. Blaming Obama for MoveOn is like blaming McCain for FreeRepublic.
Sorry for the blogs. I love Obama and people need to realize he really is different. Think about it. If I were to bet on 4 things being true said by Obama (all four) vs one chain email being true, it'd be wise to bet on Obama.
The straight talk express derailed. McCain is a bitter old man who realized that he couldn't be a moderate sane person and win the election. It's sad.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Gun Control
I do not own guns. I do not know if I ever will. If I ever bought one, it would be the Garand from World War II because I liked it from Call of Duty. Barack Obama bans the sales of "semi-automatics." I believe this is because he knows little about guns. He probably thinks semi-automatics are a lot more like AK-47s and M-16s than a Garand or a Colt 45. Someone needs to show him the Wiki page of guns.
John McCain is pro-gun control as his record shows. He chose Palin to hide that because he was tied in a lot of red states or even losing on some polls. If Obama learns about semi-automatic guns before the election, he will easily defeat McCain.
Montana, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, would all be on his side if Obama learns more about guns. This is very important.
And here is a video of Obama on video games.
The Clintons loved to ban video games, especially Hillary.
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/02/obama-talks-grand-theft-auto-at-campaign-stop/
This is a big issue, and Obama is the only pro-game, or not-anti-game candidate.
He may say things like "put the games away" but he is talking to PARENTS.
He's saying what Libertarians and all gamers have been saying for a long time. Put the games away. And he's not talking about educational games. I'm sure he'd like learning games. He's saying kids are spending too much time watching TV and playing video/computer games that it hurts their grades, and parents need to watch what their kids are doing.
On the video, he doesn't pretend he knows about the game. He uses the phrase "goo gobs of money." Which is technically true. He doesn't make up lies like kids can learn how to steal a car. If kids really tried to imitate GTA games they would run out in the middle of a street because cars get stuck trying to drive past you. If the kid didn't die, he'd try to open the door and throw the driver out.
Obama grew up playing games. Not the games we played, but he was born in fucking 1961. My dad was born in 1950, and I think he played Atari/Pong.
Obama was born in 1961. Assuming he played games until he was 20, he would have seen many of the early system. 30, he'd have seen Nintendo and the birth of the SNES.
Obama is the Gamer's choice. He takes the Libertarian position on a very important issue. Never before has a major candidate told parents "raise your kids, the government can't do it for you."
Any TRUE Libertarian who votes for John McCain is not a Libertarian.
They are just a Republican who has been told Obama will raise their taxes because he is a Marxist.
And on Economics:
You know who Adam Smith would pick? Obama.
Adam Smith talks about the invisible hand directing money to where it is needed thus the government should not interfere. But the government should not also encourage loopholes in the tax system that encourage companies to move elsewhere. A lot of neoliberal economists love to use a sentence out of Adam Smith to say he is for the way things are.
We are back at Mercantillism, what Smith rallied against. Adam Smith would vote Obama. Corporate tax loopholes are the visible hand of special interests. Obama knows his economics. McCain, as well know, does not.
Keynes would do, but Keynes and Smith, if they had known each other would both be against communism.
For those of you who think Keynes = Communist, Keynes is the last thing communism wanted. He told capitalists that they could adjust to conditions. Communists would say that is the capitalists bribing the poor to not revolt.
His theories did work for a while. I think it was more Richard Nixon abusing Keynesian theory and completely fucking it up that make it look bad. Price freezes on all goods were not something Keynes wanted.
Any sane person who has taken any advanced economic class and Economic History/econmic thought will realize Obama is the best candidate. I've never heard a major candidate actually reference Adam Smith before. Hopefully the American people respect that. I certainly do!
The Libertarianism Livejournal group does not represent Libertarianism, but a few people who want to argue beastiality and the right for a private person to own nuclear weapons.
Ron Paul may be a nutcase, but a lot of his supporters did not agree with all he says, and are going to Obama. They aren't going to fall for his "vote for any third party" trick.
John McCain is pro-gun control as his record shows. He chose Palin to hide that because he was tied in a lot of red states or even losing on some polls. If Obama learns about semi-automatic guns before the election, he will easily defeat McCain.
Montana, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, would all be on his side if Obama learns more about guns. This is very important.
And here is a video of Obama on video games.
The Clintons loved to ban video games, especially Hillary.
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/02/obama-talks-grand-theft-auto-at-campaign-stop/
This is a big issue, and Obama is the only pro-game, or not-anti-game candidate.
He may say things like "put the games away" but he is talking to PARENTS.
He's saying what Libertarians and all gamers have been saying for a long time. Put the games away. And he's not talking about educational games. I'm sure he'd like learning games. He's saying kids are spending too much time watching TV and playing video/computer games that it hurts their grades, and parents need to watch what their kids are doing.
On the video, he doesn't pretend he knows about the game. He uses the phrase "goo gobs of money." Which is technically true. He doesn't make up lies like kids can learn how to steal a car. If kids really tried to imitate GTA games they would run out in the middle of a street because cars get stuck trying to drive past you. If the kid didn't die, he'd try to open the door and throw the driver out.
Obama grew up playing games. Not the games we played, but he was born in fucking 1961. My dad was born in 1950, and I think he played Atari/Pong.
Obama was born in 1961. Assuming he played games until he was 20, he would have seen many of the early system. 30, he'd have seen Nintendo and the birth of the SNES.
Obama is the Gamer's choice. He takes the Libertarian position on a very important issue. Never before has a major candidate told parents "raise your kids, the government can't do it for you."
Any TRUE Libertarian who votes for John McCain is not a Libertarian.
They are just a Republican who has been told Obama will raise their taxes because he is a Marxist.
And on Economics:
You know who Adam Smith would pick? Obama.
Adam Smith talks about the invisible hand directing money to where it is needed thus the government should not interfere. But the government should not also encourage loopholes in the tax system that encourage companies to move elsewhere. A lot of neoliberal economists love to use a sentence out of Adam Smith to say he is for the way things are.
We are back at Mercantillism, what Smith rallied against. Adam Smith would vote Obama. Corporate tax loopholes are the visible hand of special interests. Obama knows his economics. McCain, as well know, does not.
Keynes would do, but Keynes and Smith, if they had known each other would both be against communism.
For those of you who think Keynes = Communist, Keynes is the last thing communism wanted. He told capitalists that they could adjust to conditions. Communists would say that is the capitalists bribing the poor to not revolt.
His theories did work for a while. I think it was more Richard Nixon abusing Keynesian theory and completely fucking it up that make it look bad. Price freezes on all goods were not something Keynes wanted.
Any sane person who has taken any advanced economic class and Economic History/econmic thought will realize Obama is the best candidate. I've never heard a major candidate actually reference Adam Smith before. Hopefully the American people respect that. I certainly do!
The Libertarianism Livejournal group does not represent Libertarianism, but a few people who want to argue beastiality and the right for a private person to own nuclear weapons.
Ron Paul may be a nutcase, but a lot of his supporters did not agree with all he says, and are going to Obama. They aren't going to fall for his "vote for any third party" trick.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)