Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | ... | 1117
10325 posts

Uber Geek


  #1697137 1-Jan-2017 12:47
Send private message quote this post


126 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user


  #1697185 1-Jan-2017 13:22
Send private message quote this post

Fred99:

 

 

 

Yeah, great... a pretty picture.  I didn't eat breakfast this morning and it started raining.  Therefore, if I don't eat breakfast, it will rain.  :)   I know all this sounds pedantic but, people appear to be incredibly naive today.  They seem to believe anything presented to them if it "looks" intelligent.  Incidentally, I personally believe Bush failed us all.  It doesn't really matter which political party he associates himself with.  It's as if he was simply swinging from his daddy's coattails.  What seems to have made him popular at the time was his speech at ground zero.  Beyond that, it is strongly suggested that he lied to a whole bunch of us with his quest for WMDs.  He let his counterpart in England (Tony Blair), get crucified in the public.

 

I think we can share an opinion that Bush sucked for the most part.  :)

 

Here are some media views on Obama;

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/12/19/president-obama-grants-153-commutations-and-78-pardons-individuals-deserving-second

 

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/02/01/barack_obamas_sad_record_on_economic_growth_101987.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-biggest-failures-and-successes/2012/10/29/c1299288-21cc-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_blog.html

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/12/31/barack-obamas-presidency-is-a-complete-failure-by-his-own-self-imposed-standards

 

Now then... do you trust these sources as prima facie evidence of facts or would you challenge them for any reason?

 

This isn't a debate of candidates... it's all around people using statements like, "He's a racist, she's a liar, he's not an American, he's not qualified", etc., etc., etc.  That crap needs to stop at all levels and across all parties.  It only serves to provide rhetorical ammunition for the intellectually challenged people.  Everybody needs to work together but to do so, you need to raise the bar of people's ability to think for themselves.

 

So please, don't take my comments as being condescending or personal attacks of any nature.  My goal is to get people to think for themselves on a higher plateau of logic and reason as opposed to being spoon-fed a particular narrative by those who have an agenda.  If you want to see the results of propaganda, read up on what North Koreans believe about their leader.  It's not that they are stupid people but, it's all they have ever known and come to believe.

 

 

 

 

 

 


 
 
 
 


4431 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user


  #1697195 1-Jan-2017 13:45
Send private message quote this post

So if Obama was president when something something, it doesn't count because there's no actual proof he did anything, BUT if Trump is president-elect, then he caused it all to happen therefore is a god... 

 

 

 

I think I understand where we're at now.

 

 


126 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user


  #1697197 1-Jan-2017 13:47
Send private message quote this post

blakamin:

 

So if Obama was president when something something, it doesn't count because there's no actual proof he did anything, BUT if Trump is president-elect, then he caused it all to happen therefore is a god... 

 

I think I understand where we're at now.

 

 

   I like your sense of humour!


15203 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #1697209 1-Jan-2017 14:17
Send private message quote this post

It's a new year and I thought I would catch up on this thread , hmmmm that was a mistake, seems to have morphed into a pissing contest.

I maybe wrong but hasn't the answer to the threads question been found?




Mike
Change Management Consultant
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

He waka eke noa


20796 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1697213 1-Jan-2017 14:33
Send private message quote this post

MikeB4: It's a new year and I thought I would catch up on this thread , hmmmm that was a mistake, seems to have morphed into a pissing contest.

I maybe wrong but hasn't the answer to the threads question been found?


A huge mistake. Yes the thread has been resolved.

It would have faded, but someone has re ignited it. I'd unsubscribe but the personal denigrations going on are bordering on humorous.

gzt

11440 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #1697234 1-Jan-2017 16:18
Send private message quote this post

JimsonWeed:

gzt:
freitasm:


JimsonWeed:


freitasm:


Apparently Democrats reduced unemployment, made healthcare more accessible to the poorest and middle-class and improved minimum wage. Exactly what Republicans don't want.



With all due respect, can you cite your sources? [Snip]


If you have sources other than the Huffington Post or Fox News, by all means, share it.



Unemployment rate in the USA is now lower than when Obama started - 50% lower actually. If you look at the charts you will see who was in charge when unemployment went up. Go on, make your own charts here (US Bureau of Statistics).


 



 


Uninsured population is now the lowest in eight years, according to Gallup. You can play with numbers from KFF.org here.




[Pending..]


 


Excellent!  Now examine this statement; "Unemployment rate in the USA is now lower than when Obama started - 50% lower actually".  The graph is real, absolutely, yep, yep, yep... completely agree.  BUT, it does not provide one iota of evidence that the unemployment rate is lower as a result of Obama's actions.  That is exactly what I was talking about when I said, "Correlation does not imply causation".  It is false logic.  Just because two events appear related, it does not mean that they are related.  Here we go again... cite the source that proves the two are related.  :) 


The original discussion was;


freitasm:


Apparently Democrats reduced unemployment, made healthcare more accessible to the poorest and middle-class and improved minimum wage. Exactly what Republicans don't want.



JimsonWeed


With all due respect, can you cite your sources? [Snip]


If you have sources other than the Huffington Post or Fox News, by all means, share it.



A pretty picture next to an unattached statement does not quite cut the mustard, bruh :)   I could just have easily say that my brother Bob went to America and as a result, the Unemployment rate is now lower.  Gee, Bob must have worked wonders :)   *chuckle*  I'll bet a light just went on in your head.  You get the point now.  We didn't even address the comment; "Exactly what Republicans don't want".  Well now.. that is mighty clairvoyant to know the hearts and minds of all Republicans.  I wonder if Ms Cleo has a role open on the Psychic Friends Network :)


 


 


Well that's not really the point.

You asserted that a claimed economic boost in the USA could be derived using Occam's Razor from Trump's incumbency.

One or more posters then mentioned several metrics from Obama's term. You asked for a response with credible references.

Freitasm clearly took some time to produce exactly that. Then you ignored it and failed to reply to an entirely sensible post.

When asked specifically to reply, you applied a different standard entirely.

Your earlier assertion regarding Trump totally lacks any of the references you asked for the claims about made Obama's term. In fact, you provided no evidence, whatsoever.

If you are questioning the quality of evidence for assertions, you are a long way behind on that score.




 
 
 
 


126 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user


  #1697237 1-Jan-2017 16:37
Send private message quote this post

 

 


Well that's not really the point.

You asserted that a claimed economic boost in the USA could be derived using Occam's Razor from Trump's incumbency.

One or more posters then mentioned several metrics from Obama's term. You asked for a response with credible references.

Freitasm clearly took some time to produce exactly that. Then you ignored it and failed to reply to an entirely sensible post.

When asked specifically to reply, you applied a different standard entirely.

Your earlier assertion regarding Trump totally lacks any of the references you asked for the claims about made Obama's term. In fact, you provided no evidence, whatsoever.

If you are questioning the quality of evidence for assertions, you are a long way behind on that score.

 

 

 

1: Yes.  The upswing of the DOW occurred for some reason.  What was that reason?  I suggested it was people's confidence in Trump's ability to perform.  Another gentlemen support this by suggesting it was possibly people's confidence in the new administration.  The purpose for suggesting the use of Occam's Razor was to say; "What do YOU think is the most likely reason for the upswing in the DOW" (i.e., think for your self).

 

2: None of the references were credible for the reasons I gave earlier.  To reiterate, there was no relationship between the claims and the information provided; "I didn't eat breakfast this morning and it started raining.  Therefore, if I don't eat breakfast, it will rain".  That is the logic that was being presented.  It's far from credible.  :)

 

3: The Obama references I gave you were for you to read and determine whether or not YOU first trust the information and second, trust the source of the information.  If you read them... the question still stands; do YOU trust the information given?  Do you consider that type of referencing as credible?

 

4: You're right.  I still haven't learned that you can lead a horse to water but, you can't make it write it's name.  Therefore, the horse must be retarded :)

 

 

 

 


gzt

11440 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #1697264 1-Jan-2017 17:12
Send private message quote this post

The logic of a connection between Obama's term of presidency and economic indicators during his term of presidency is reasonable, and more than reasonable enough that it deserves a response on the basis of fact.

The logical connection is solid enough that you would need to introduce specific evidence to refute the argument that Obama's administration is responsible for those indicators.

You have not done that.

126 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user


  #1697270 1-Jan-2017 17:21
Send private message quote this post

gzt: The logic of a connection between Obama's term of presidency and economic indicators during his term of presidency is reasonable, and more than reasonable enough that it deserves a response on the basis of fact.

The logical connection is solid enough that you would need to introduce specific evidence to refute the argument that Obama's administration is responsible for those indicators.

You have not done that.

 

No need to refute it. I agree with the media articles I posted.  My opinion is, that reflects a weak showing.  So, if we agree the articles I posted are reasonable good resources, now we simply disagree on the quality of his performance.

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/12/19/president-obama-grants-153-commutations-and-78-pardons-individuals-deserving-second

 

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/02/01/barack_obamas_sad_record_on_economic_growth_101987.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-biggest-failures-and-successes/2012/10/29/c1299288-21cc-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_blog.html

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/12/31/barack-obamas-presidency-is-a-complete-failure-by-his-own-self-imposed-standards

 

 


15203 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #1697280 1-Jan-2017 17:44
Send private message quote this post

Obama's success or failure depends on where one sits. For some very successful for some very unsuccessful. Some views are neutral, all points of view are correct.





Mike
Change Management Consultant
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

He waka eke noa


gzt

11440 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #1697302 1-Jan-2017 18:49
Send private message quote this post

JimsonWeed:

gzt: The logic of a connection between Obama's term of presidency and economic indicators during his term of presidency is reasonable, and more than reasonable enough that it deserves a response on the basis of fact.

The logical connection is solid enough that you would need to introduce specific evidence to refute the argument that Obama's administration is responsible for those indicators.

You have not done that.


No need to refute it. I agree with the media articles I posted.  My opinion is, that reflects a weak showing.  So, if we agree the articles I posted are reasonable good resources, now we simply disagree on the quality of his performance.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/12/19/president-obama-grants-153-commutations-and-78-pardons-individuals-deserving-second


http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/02/01/barack_obamas_sad_record_on_economic_growth_101987.html


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-biggest-failures-and-successes/2012/10/29/c1299288-21cc-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_blog.html


http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/12/31/barack-obamas-presidency-is-a-complete-failure-by-his-own-self-imposed-standards


 


Do I take it that each of these articles contain information that refutes the contention that the Obama administration was responsible for the lower unemployment figure? If so, quote from those to support your point of view.

These links are somewhat similar to the reference you provided to an entire book earlier. No quotation was provided.


BDFL - Memuneh
67436 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator
Trusted
Geekzone
Lifetime subscriber

  #1697303 1-Jan-2017 18:55
Send private message quote this post

JimsonWeed:

 

gzt: The logic of a connection between Obama's term of presidency and economic indicators during his term of presidency is reasonable, and more than reasonable enough that it deserves a response on the basis of fact.

The logical connection is solid enough that you would need to introduce specific evidence to refute the argument that Obama's administration is responsible for those indicators.

You have not done that.

 

No need to refute it. I agree with the media articles I posted.  My opinion is, that reflects a weak showing.  So, if we agree the articles I posted are reasonable good resources, now we simply disagree on the quality of his performance.

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/12/19/president-obama-grants-153-commutations-and-78-pardons-individuals-deserving-second

 

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/02/01/barack_obamas_sad_record_on_economic_growth_101987.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-biggest-failures-and-successes/2012/10/29/c1299288-21cc-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_blog.html

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/12/31/barack-obamas-presidency-is-a-complete-failure-by-his-own-self-imposed-standards

 

 

Sure... The Washington Post is a blog, the Forbes post is an opinion piece by a Republican that served under Regan and G. W. Bush. Yes, I see where this is going.

 

Give us some non-partisan facts instead of Republican diatribes and we can see something. I gave you information from the Bureau of Statistics and we came up with the "correlation not causation", so I come with "partisan hack".

 

I think this discussion has been going long enough and I see where you're in the political spectrum now.





 

 

These links are referral codes

 

Geekzone broadband switch | Eletricity comparison and switch | Hatch investment (NZ$ 10 bonus if NZ$100 deposited within 30 days) | Sharesies | Mighty Ape | Backblaze | Amazon | My technology disclosure 


126 posts

Master Geek
Inactive user


  #1697304 1-Jan-2017 18:59
Send private message quote this post

gzt:
JimsonWeed:

 

gzt: The logic of a connection between Obama's term of presidency and economic indicators during his term of presidency is reasonable, and more than reasonable enough that it deserves a response on the basis of fact.

The logical connection is solid enough that you would need to introduce specific evidence to refute the argument that Obama's administration is responsible for those indicators.

You have not done that.

 

No need to refute it. I agree with the media articles I posted.  My opinion is, that reflects a weak showing.  So, if we agree the articles I posted are reasonable good resources, now we simply disagree on the quality of his performance.

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/12/19/president-obama-grants-153-commutations-and-78-pardons-individuals-deserving-second

 

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2016/02/01/barack_obamas_sad_record_on_economic_growth_101987.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-biggest-failures-and-successes/2012/10/29/c1299288-21cc-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_blog.html

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/12/31/barack-obamas-presidency-is-a-complete-failure-by-his-own-self-imposed-standards

 


Do I take it that each of these articles contain information that refutes the contention that the Obama administration was responsible for the lower unemployment figure? If so, quote from those to support your point of view.

These links are somewhat similar to the reference you provided to an entire book earlier. No quotation was provided.

 

Go back and read what I wrote.  It clearly tells you how to view these references.  They are not for or against anything... they are for your personal edification.  If you think they refute.. great.  If not, no problem.  To me, it reflects that he was a sh*t president :)


654 posts

Ultimate Geek


#1697309 1-Jan-2017 19:20
Send private message quote this post

Fred99:

 

Thought I'd post this, seeing as "Liberal" has become a dirty word / insult being thrown around (liberally ha!) by the ~25% of American voters who elected Trump:

 

Hey kids- lets play a game - what's the opposite of "liberal"?

 

Oh that's easy - it's "narrow minded, bigoted, conservative, and reactionary".

 

Thank goodness the libtards didn't win!

 

 

 

 

 

It's become a 'dirty word' because of the way millions of so called liberals all over the world have behaved post 08/11/2016.

 

If these are accepted definitions of liberal, what are all the anti-Trump 'protesters' then?

 

Because they're anything but willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from their own, or be open to new ideas, favorable or respectful of individual rights or freedoms, favoring individual liberty and any political and social reform (AKA Make America Great again, Drain The Swamp)...  

 

You just need to look at all their posts, you tube video's, opinion pieces in the media, and numerous conspiracy theories about the free and fair USA election results were somehow 'rigged' because it didn't go the way they wanted.   

 

*********************

 

The West Wing: How most people believe the US president and US political hierarchy work for the good of 'all'.

 

House Of Cards: How the US president and hierarchy really rule the world. 

 

Isn't it time this 'discussion' was locked?

 

Good or bad, Trump won, this is the reality the world has to live with for the next 4-8 years. 

Not All Men.


1 | ... | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | ... | 1117
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter and LinkedIn »



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Menulog change colours as parent company merges with Dutch food delivery service
Posted 2-Jul-2020 07:53


Techweek2020 goes digital to make it easier for Kiwis to connect and learn
Posted 2-Jul-2020 07:48


Catalyst Cloud launches new Solutions Hub to support their kiwi Partners and Customers
Posted 2-Jul-2020 07:44


Microsoft to help New Zealand job seekers acquire new digital skills needed for the COVID-19 economy
Posted 2-Jul-2020 07:41


Hewlett Packard Enterprise introduces new HPE GreenLake cloud services
Posted 24-Jun-2020 08:07


New cloud data protection services from Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Posted 24-Jun-2020 07:58


Hewlett Packard Enterprise unveils HPE Ezmeral, new software portfolio and brand
Posted 24-Jun-2020 07:10


Apple reveals new developer technologies to foster the next generation of apps
Posted 23-Jun-2020 15:30


Poly introduces solutions for Microsoft Teams Rooms
Posted 23-Jun-2020 15:14


Lenovo launches new ThinkPad P Series mobile workstations
Posted 23-Jun-2020 09:17


Lenovo brings Linux certification to ThinkPad and ThinkStation Workstation portfolio
Posted 23-Jun-2020 08:56


Apple introduces new features for iPhone iOS14 and iPadOS 14
Posted 23-Jun-2020 08:28


Apple announces Mac transition to Apple silicon
Posted 23-Jun-2020 08:18


OPPO A72 a top mid-tier smartphone
Posted 19-Jun-2020 18:02


D-Link A/NZ launches new smart AX1500 Wi-Fi 6 Router
Posted 19-Jun-2020 15:03



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.