People Who Have No Idea What They're Talking About but they think they know everything

[jaychant 0]

One thing that REALLY makes me mad is when people that have absolutely no idea what they are talking about but think they know everything about what they're talking about. My mom does this a lot. Recently, she got upset at us because the DirecTV receiver stopped working all of a sudden. First, I tried pressing the power button on the receiver a few times. My mom yelled something along the lines of, "Stop! You're going to break it! STOP!!" Then I suggested pushing the reset button, and she exclaimed, "No! You're not supposed to use that too much! It could break it!" When she finally permitted me to push it and I went to push it, she shouted, "No! You can't reset it like that, it'll break it! Use the RESET BUTTON!!"A less recent incidence of this happening was when my stepfather (who I just call Howard) got mad on a few occasions at us for using crushed ice from the ice dispenser on the fridge door. For some reason he thought it would cause it to break.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

lol, I just hate when people get mad about things to do with politics and stuff like that. For example, "Bush sucks, he put us in war with Iraq!" is a very common phrase I hear (not exactly, but along those lines). The reason this irritates me is *he* has no power except for exonoration (freedom from prison). Other than that, it's CONGRESS who decides what we do and do not do. And amazingly enough, Congress during Bush's administration was half Rep. and half Dem. which means the Dem.'s were also agreeing we should go to war. So to blame anything on Rep. or Bush is showing pure ignorance.Sorry for dragging that out, it's just a great example of things I hate about humans. "Ignorance is bliss."

[jaychant 0]

I still think Bush is largely at fault, not because he made the decision (which in fact he didn't), but because his lies convinced Congress to go to war.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

I still think Bush is largely at fault, not because he made the decision (which in fact he didn't), but because his lies convinced Congress to go to war.

Yet another sign of someone who speaks about something they don't know about.... If you guys want, I can make an article on my website about the whole claim that Bush lied about WMD's and how it's false. There is video, written reports, etc. where Saddam claimed to have Weapons of Mass Destruction. BUT he said it because Iran was threatening to invade them(Iraq). He did not say it as a threat to the U.S., but our government got a hold of the threats via their sneaky ways of keeping tabs on everything/everyone. Saddam's threat was empty(supposedly) and he admitted that. It served its purpose(kept Iran out) but did not keep us from stepping in.

On top of that, Saddam was practicing mass murder on his own people. Over the past 10 years or so(before 9/11) he had killed tens of thousands of his own people for various things. Not to mention he and his brother were raping women by using their power(if the women said no they would be sentenced to death) among other things. If we stepped in against Hitler, why not Saddam?

Now then, consider what happened when we first went to Iraq. This wasn't highly publicized but anyone who has done the research instead of saying "Hm, it was on the news...It's 100% true" should know this : when we first went to Iraq, Saddam actually claimed to have chemical missiles aimed towards Baghdad. In that, he said if we did not leave his country he was going to launch them to kill himself and everyone around it(including our troops who were going there).

So, there are just a couple of the things people claim aren't enough justification to move in against Saddam. Don't even get me started on his own people and their feelings towards him, or the explanation as to why they are against the USA now. And like I said, if you wish I can make an article about it, explaining why we were not wrong for going there(not personal opinion, I will give well documented information).


For the record, if all you watch is the news, you will never learn the truth about anything. The news is a money-making organization and they use what's called "Yellow Journalism." If you don't know what that is, I highly suggest taking a journalism class in college or doing research on it. You will learn a lot.

[rayzoredge 2]

Politics are full of people that talk about a whole bunch of crap that they know nothing about. That's why I hate dealing with politics, even though it's something that everyone should be aware of.

 

Let's take our current president for example. A ton of people voted for Obama for a ton of various reasons, not a heck of a lot which seemed to be valid. Some people voted for him because he was black. Some people voted for him because he "promised change and hope." Hope. A majority of us voted for "hope." And "change." What president gets elected into office and doesn't change a d*mn thing? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose?

 

More on the president gig: I'm usually stuck listening to the Shawn Hannity show on talk radio because my best friend and co-worker is big on conservative politics, always blaming things on stupid liberals and such. And you know what? Some of the stupid crap that we deal with now is most likely to be blamed on who he announces as liberal idiots. Just the other day, I heard that they wanted to get rid of Columbus Day weekend and just call it Fall Weekend. Why? Because some idiot thought that it was offensive that we celebrate the person who found America, who happens to be Geonese/Spanish. It was a race issue. C'mon!

 

Anyway, one of the things that I found profoundly idiotic on the Shawn Hannity show is one of his features. Shawn goes out into the street every now and then and asks a random person on the street a series of questions. And, with no real exaggeration, this is usually what ensues:

 

Shawn: "Hi there! How's it going! You look like a fine American... what's your name?"

Person: "Hi... name's Joe."

Shawn: "All right, Joe... would be all right if I asked you a few questions?"

Joe: "Sure."

Shawn: "What do you think of our current president... umm... er... what's his name?"

Joe: "Obama."

Shawn: "And who's the vice president now?"

Joe: "Uh... umm... I can't remember."

Shawn: "I think his first name is Joe... Joe... Joe something..."

Joe: "Oh! Biden. Joe Biden."

Shawn: "Yeah, that guy. You think that both of those guys are doing a good job so far?"

Joe: "Yeah."

Shawn: "All right... hey Joe, have you ever heard of the G-20 Summit?"

Joe: "The what?"

Shawn: "Nevermind... anyway, what do you think about universal healthcare?"

Joe: "I think it would be a great idea. Everyone needs healthcare. It would be a good thing."

Shawn: "Agreed! And what about homes? Homes are a good thing to provide to those who need them, yes?"

Joe: "Yep. I think that everyone should be entitled to the basic amenities... room, shower, board, all that good stuff."

Shawn: "Especially those who need it and can't afford it, right?"

Joe: "Yep."

Shawn: "And you believe that everyone should be entitled to that?"

Joe: "Yep."

Shawn: "Cool! So we've got basic needs... and everyone needs a job, right? And the transportation to get to work, right?"

Joe: "Of course."

Shawn: "So universal transportation! We should provide universal transportation for everyone who can't afford a car."

Joe: "Umm... sure. But only to those who really need it."

Shawn: "Yep... yep. So Joe, who's going to pay for all of this?"

Joe: "Pay for what?"

Shawn: "All of this. The universal health care, the transportation, the basic room and board... all that good stuff?"

Joe: "The government."

Shawn: "Really? How does the government get all of that money to fund this stuff?"

Joe: "Uh... the taxpayers." *ding*

Shawn: "Ah. Yes. Us. Hey Joe... 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.' Those that can work should provide for those who can't. Do you agree with that?"

Joe: "Uh... sure. I guess that all of what we were just saying kind of sums that up."

Shawn: "Cool. Do you know who said that quote?"

Joe: "No."

Shawn: "Karl Marx said that once. Are you a Marxist, Joe."

Joe: "No... no, no."

Shawn: "But Joe, all of what you agreed to follows under socialism: for everyone to be provided for, for the better to take care of the worst, for the worker to provide for those who can't work."

Joe: "..."

 

I've listened to a handful of these street conversations and that's really how it goes. Sure, the conversation scheme is biased because he usually picks on younger folk that don't know any better (like me), but then again, a majority of Obama's supporters were younger folk... because Obama was smart and tapped into an audience that usually wasn't big on politics. It was genius, really, to sway an entire age group of people by announcing a campaign of "hope" and "change..." because, hey, who wouldn't want that? Plus, McCain was too old. Yep. I've heard that one too. Let's not forget the single-issue voters who vote for candidates on the basis of whether they are anti- or pro-choice, whether they are for global warming or not...

 

OH! Let's talk about global warming!

 

The ice caps are melting. Polar bears are drowning. Things are getting hotter. We need green solutions.

 

By the way, New Hampshire just suffered an ice storm a few months ago. It's also still cold up here.

 

A lot of people are going to say that global warming exists and we can help slow it down or stop it. Apparently, we as a species are able to spew out enough emissions to make a difference to the ozone layer... and apparently, if we choke these emissions and be more environmental-friendly, we can make a huge difference... nevermind the fact that when a volcano erupts, it spews more carbon dioxide and other gaseous pollutants than all of the cars in the world can emit. Which is a fact, you know. A fact that someone already "proved" wrong.

 

The Wilkins ice shelf was actually in the news when a chunk of it collapsed due to a weakening... which, you guessed it, was due to global warming. Of course, no one knew afterwards that the Wilkins shelf actually refroze several times. That makes sense with the presence of nunataks... presented in this article.

 

Nunataks are generally angular and jagged because of freeze-thaw weathering, and can be seen to contrast strongly with the softer contours of the glacially eroded land below if the glacier retreats.

Isn't global warming defined as the gradual warming of the earth due to greenhouse gases? Why are there nunataks being formed by the melting and refreezing of ice formations?

 

Also, no one blames the fact that there was seismic activity in the area of the Wilkins Sound. Surely, a couple of earthquakes could NOT have contributed to the polar bears breaking off from their natural habitat to float off and die in the cold, lonely ocean.

 

-

 

I am one of these people who have no idea what they're talking about that OP would love to hate. That's because I'm one of billions of people who believe what they read, misinterpret what they see, and are misinformed. It's all about generating a buzz about an idea. Maybe I can convince enough people that a zombie infestation IS coming. After all, we already have a survival guide.

[jaychant 0]

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about... Global warming is REAL, people! Earth is much hotter than it's ever been in its entire history, and you still claim it to be fake? Look at these graphs. Starting in the 1920's-1930's (which was interestingly when the automobile became widely used), temperatures have risen dramatically. Also, watch An Inconvenient Truth. It explains very clearly that global warming is very real and proves it in many ways.

And FYI, the ice caps ARE melting.

And by the way, "still cold up here" doesn't prove anything against the melting of the ice caps (which is very real) or global warming.

I just don't get why some people reject scientific evidence for their own little ideas.

[buxgoddess 1]

It happened a lot of times when I got across a post that is good enough to read at the beginning but as you read along you find that the author is a rubbish writer and is not sure what he is writing all about. The thoughts are all scattered and he is not sure as to where he started it altogether. Some people are so carried away that they ignore what they are writing about and just keep on writing what they are thinking. A hell of a place best left alone. These authors are stupid enough to justify that they are actually talking about the topic itself but are actually telling something else.And there are a few who only speak in metaphors and will not in any way directly address what is to be discussed. Instead will give examples from epics, novels and god knows from where to just keep on talking.These people know not what they are talking but pretend that they know everything.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

Wow rayzor...I love you. Finally someone who understands that the media is full of crap. The media is no different than wal-mart. The sole purpose is to earn money.


As for my view on Global Warming, I think it's completely bogus. Here's my article on it, going against Al Gore. Every point he made in his video "An Inconvenient Truth" can be proven false. I went ahead and nailed a few of his inconsistencies in my post. Check it out here:

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

And by all means, let me know what you think of it. And none of this "LOL UR WRONG CUZ CNN SAID IT IS REAL!" If you're going to try and prove me wrong, do it by doing proper research. News media doesn't count. My source for "Global Warming" comes straight from scientific journals and doctoral theses.


Edit : Rayzor, I am 100% against Obama. He is putting into effect many things that are against privacy and stuff. He is moving the USA towards a communist state. There's no way to deny it. He can be *directly* compared to Hitler.

Edited April 14, 2009 by rpgsearcherz (see edit history)

[jaychant 0]

Barack Obama can be DIRECTLY compared with FDR, who did the exact same sort of thing. We're not going to change into a Communist state. Personally I like what Obama is doing so far, and I certainly don't think he's invading our privacy any more than Bush did, if even as much.

[rayzoredge 2]

@jaychant: I never pointed out that global warming never existed. I placed emphasis on the fact that people have blown the issue of global warming out of proportion. As I've pointed out in another thread that discussed global warming, I'm glad that people, whether they're just jumping onto the bandwagon of "going green" or actually are more environmentally-aware, are actually attempting to make a difference. (And even though companies are feeding off of the general public and their desire to follow the latest trend by introducing "green" products, at least it helps spread more awareness that makes somewhat of a difference.) I actually hate it when people absolutely deny global warming and actually do things like pollute in defiance, and I hate it when people go off and spout about how the polar bears are drowning because all the ice caps are melting. Both extremes are retarded, in my opinion.Another strike you have against your global warming gig is that you watched a video and announce it as a support. I suppose that watching Loose Change and Michael Moore's videos proves that 9/11 was a conspiracy and that Columbine was preventable and both incidents can be blamed on someone or some people. As much as I applaud a different perspective and the effort in seeing other possibilities other than what the media loves to feed us, I believe nothing. It's like politics: you're just accepting an explanation for the unexplained and running off with it. (With politics, you hear the "good" stuff and then spout your crap about why the other side is dumb.) I can only spout off the positive thinking behind Shawn Hannity's conservatism because I've only really been exposed to that, and it makes sense. However, I don't classify myself as a conservative because I do like what the other side thinks too on some issues.@buxgoddess: I wouldn't blame you if you actually directed your post against me, because in all reality, a lot of what I post is somewhat relevant to the topic and a direct contribution of what I know and what I can share towards it. But the reason why I would post anything like that is to be able to have a discussion to see what other people would think. Take jaychant's global warming kick for example. I didn't know his/her stand on it until I made an example of it in my post. Now everyone is presented with WHY jaychant believes that global warming exists to the extent that he/she believes it is. (Everyone also knows that I'm full of crap. ) Even though I may or may not post rubbish on a forum, I still incite a discussion that reveals both sides of the coin, or even different perspectives. In all reality, most of us ARE full of crap because a lot of us take things and run with it. I try to keep an open mind, but even I'm guilty of a lot of things that I've learned in my life and that I am stubborn in my ways with.And if you didn't indirectly target me with that post, cool. @rpgsearcherz: The sole purpose is to polish a turd as much as you can, show the shiny side of it, and get as much attention as you can so that you can spread the word and use your followers to assist you in your cause.There really isn't a perfect thing in life that we can approach. Everything is going to have a hidden dark side. (That's what cynicism is for. ) Like I pointed out above, I'm glad that people are paying attention to global warming. However, some people are pushing their beliefs on to others, which I hate. Are the ice caps melting? Sure. Are they refreezing? Oops... no one wanted to mention that fact. Hasn't the Earth had a history of a steady climb in temperature? Who's to say that behavior isn't normal, and that no matter what we do, we can't make a drastic difference? Who actually knows if we can? Does anyone really know anything, or do we just read our textbooks and run with the "fact" that gravity pulls everything down at 9.8 meters per second squared? (Have you proven that to yourself yet?)This discussion can jump right into the philosophy of Plato (or Socrates, I can't remember), where no one really knows anything, and how we're dooming ourselves to just assume that what has been recorded is true, doomed to regurgitate everything in our history books and our science experiments instead of experiencing things for ourselves. But then again... who's to say that I even know what I'm talking about? One thing's for sure: I don't know anything except for what I've personally experienced, and what I interpret from it is true to me and no one else. You can take what I've said and run with it, which would prove one of my points that I've lain out here, or you can take it, chew on it for a bit, and form your own little idea about the topic at hand. Edited April 15, 2009 by rayzoredge (see edit history)

[rpgsearcherz 5]

Barack Obama can be DIRECTLY compared with FDR, who did the exact same sort of thing. We're not going to change into a Communist state. Personally I like what Obama is doing so far, and I certainly don't think he's invading our privacy any more than Bush did, if even as much.

Bush destroyed a lot of our privacy and started the thing, yes, but Obama is pushing it far.

Obama is pushing for these things right now(and some have been passed):


The ability to completely shut down the government's internet infrastructure during mass virus threats - this keeps us from being able to visit ANY websites(in the USA)

The ability for the government to search any electronic device you own just to see if you have pirated songs, games, etc. on it. They are attempting to push it as far as to where if you are driving down the road the police can pull you over just to check for illegal electronic material.

The ability to create a PERSONAL army as powerful as the US Army....There are *reasons* the US Army can't get involved in domestic issues. Read history books to learn WHY. And he's attempting to destroy that.


And there's many more things he is doing that are going to completely destroy our privacy. What you do in your home, online, etc. will be known by them. You will not be able to do anything without being watched.

How that doesn't relate to communism I have no idea.

Hilter's army could kill and do anything they wanted, even on their own people.
China's government chooses what websites they can and can not visit.
And obviously in any communistic government the government is allowed to search anything they want of yours without asking or needing permission.

[jaychant 0]

@rpgsearcherz: First of all, you like many others confuse Communism with totalitarianism. Communism is nothing more than a socialistic economic system in which all a nation's goods are evenly distributed among the people. What you're thinking of is totalitarianism, where a single leader will take control of every aspect of life. But I think your claims of totalitarianism are absurd. Barack Obama only has four years in his presidency (or 8 if he gets elected again), and that's hardly enough time to replicate what Stalin did in the Soviet Union (which took, if I'm not mistaken, more than a decade). Besides this, US law was made specifically to protect the people from absolute rule, so even if I believed Barack Obama had the intent of controlling or monitoring every aspect of our lives, I wouldn't believe that we are on the verge of becoming a totalitarian state. I think you're just a republican fool who was told false information and now rant about it as if it were fact. This thought is easily supported by your claim that global warming is "totally bogus"

@rayzoredge: Yeah, I think I will stop advocating that global warming exists and instead advocate that we should take action. I watched a video called How It All Ends, which does an excellent job explaining why we should take action against global warming.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

@rpgsearcherz: First of all, you like many others confuse Communism with totalitarianism. Communism is nothing more than a socialistic economic system in which all a nation's goods are evenly distributed among the people. What you're thinking of is totalitarianism, where a single leader will take control of every aspect of life. But I think your claims of totalitarianism are absurd. Barack Obama only has four years in his presidency (or 8 if he gets elected again), and that's hardly enough time to replicate what Stalin did in the Soviet Union (which took, if I'm not mistaken, more than a decade). Besides this, US law was made specifically to protect the people from absolute rule, so even if I believed Barack Obama had the intent of controlling or monitoring every aspect of our lives, I wouldn't believe that we are on the verge of becoming a totalitarian state. I think you're just a republican fool who was told false information and now rant about it as if it were fact. This thought is easily supported by your claim that global warming is "totally bogus"
@rayzoredge: Yeah, I think I will stop advocating that global warming exists and instead advocate that we should take action. I watched a video called How It All Ends, which does an excellent job explaining why we should take action against global warming.

Yeah, you're completely correct. I'm making my basis solely on the news media, not by what Obama himself has said in the speeches he has made (both pre- and post- election).

I also have no earthly idea where to find recent bills that have been passed by Congress, nor do I read them to see what type of laws and changes are being made in our government.

Furthermore, I completely misinterpreted the whole "Nationalized health care," "Education funds for everyone," and many other things Obama has never spoke of as being things that are the start to the government distributing goods "evenly amongst the people."

Last but not least, I apologize for my lack of keeping up with the fact that Obama fired a CEO at GM.

I apologize for my lack of research. Next time I will do more looking into things before I bring anything up.

[jaychant 0]

Apology accepted, and I apologize for calling you a republican fool or otherwise making fun of you.

[rpgsearcherz 5]

Apology accepted, and I apologize for calling you a republican fool or otherwise making fun of you.

Lol, I like you. It seems we view a lot of things the same, based on posts in other threads.