In other words if you can get your 51% to be willing to loot from the other 49%, you are cool with that. I disagree.
Not in other words. I didn't say that so don't suggest I did.
What I'm saying is that as a citizen you vote. I vote for things I like and vote agsinst things I don't like. I like the idea that everyone has coverage.
You don't like something, don't you- FISHERMAGE, tell your congressman about it? Don't you vote against people trying to implement things you don't want?
Do you Fishermage vote for politicians who will present bills YOU like and vote down ones you DON'T?
I have no idea why you are pretending you don't vote with a conscience for issues.
All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed. Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless.
Concrete and timeless?
Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property? Or the one that made alcohol illegal? Those timeless and concrete laws?
Do you think these things through or just see opportunities to attack?
That's why laws should be able to change. Because obviously those laws were not based upon solid reasoning and fair judgment.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
In other words if you can get your 51% to be willing to loot from the other 49%, you are cool with that. I disagree.
Not in other words. I didn't say that so don't suggest I did.
What I'm saying is that as a citizen you vote. I vote for things I like and vote agsinst things I don't like. I like the idea that everyone has coverage.
You don't like something, don't you- FISHERMAGE, tell your congressman about it? Don't you vote against people trying to implement things you don't want?
Do you Fishermage vote for politicians who will present bills YOU like and vote down ones you DON'T?
I have no idea why you are pretending you don't vote with a conscience for issues.
In other words, you VOTE so you can get your gang big enough to take away the property of one group of people and transfer it to another, and I vote against that. Pretty much what I have been saying all along. You VOTE to loot; I vote against looting.
I DO vote with a conscience, which tells me, looting is wrong. Yours doesn't. I understand that. Do you?
Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed. Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless.
Concrete and timeless?
Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property? Or the one that made alcohol illegal? Those timeless and concrete laws?
Do you think these things through or just see opportunities to attack?
That's why laws should be able to change. Because obviously those laws were not based upon solid reasoning and fair judgment.
Do I think things through? You said laws should be able to be changed, which I agree with. But then you say they should be concrete and timeless?
How the hell does that work? Should be changeable, but also concrete? That's an oxymoron.
Or do you mean changed until you like them and then never changed again?
In other words, my gang is bigger than yours,therefore I am right. Sorry, that's not a very convincing argument. Just because most of the industrialized world is voting for moral cannibalism, doesn't mean anyone should support such.
Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed. Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless.
Concrete and timeless?
Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property? Or the one that made alcohol illegal? Those timeless and concrete laws?
yet you believe that all we need is 51% of the people to say so, and black pople can be made property again, by vote.
i said major majority, so it would have to be more than 51% to rule without error, but in principle yes I do. Who else is supposed to decide matters like that? The American people are smart enough to know what laws are fair and correct, why not let them decide.
The idea that somehow, if 51% say "x" is okay or a good idea or what have you really makes me uneasy. I tend to agree with Fisher on this: just because 51% say something is okay, that does not make it right in my opinion.
Say you have 100 people who are asked "should slavery be legal in the United States?" If 51 of those people say that slavery should be legalized in this country, does that then make it right to enslave others? What if the 51 vote to enslave the 49? Does the fact that the (barely) larger half of the people voting on the matter mean that, because 51 of 100 said they thought it was a good idea, the other 49 can be enslaved because they "lost" the vote?
Slavery, incidentally, is a good analogy here and one that I chose to "steal" to make the points:
1 - Just because 51% of people believe something is a good idea doesn't mean it is;
2 - When 51 people can force 49 people into subservience to them and their wishes, something is very wrong with the system.
It is my opinion that the matter should be put to a national referendum and that referendum ought to require a minimum 60% vote to pass - as should have the stimulus package and as should be the 2nd stimulus package that our country's elected leaders tell us is "on the table." If the Senate must get 60% of the votes in order to pass a bill to save the fluffy bunnies, then the people deserve no less of a majority in such a major and divisive issue. Much of the world actually requires a vote percentage spread that makes it clear that the vote is truly the will of the majority (or that the vote has at least been altered sufficiently to make it appear that way), yet here in the US, we say that 51% is a "majority" and clearly "the will of the people" when such an idea has more flaws than are mentionable in a forum.
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
In other words if you can get your 51% to be willing to loot from the other 49%, you are cool with that. I disagree.
Not in other words. I didn't say that so don't suggest I did.
What I'm saying is that as a citizen you vote. I vote for things I like and vote agsinst things I don't like. I like the idea that everyone has coverage.
You don't like something, don't you- FISHERMAGE, tell your congressman about it? Don't you vote against people trying to implement things you don't want?
Do you Fishermage vote for politicians who will present bills YOU like and vote down ones you DON'T?
I have no idea why you are pretending you don't vote with a conscience for issues.
In other words, you VOTE so you can get your gang big enough to take away the property of one group of people and transfer it to another, and I vote against that. Pretty much what I have been saying all along. You VOTE to loot; I vote against looting.
I DO vote with a conscience, which tells me, looting is wrong. Yours doesn't. I understand that. Do you?
WTF?
He didn't say that.
Why do you hate America?
For one, Ii may even agree with you, if I also, like you, thought that all poor people are simply lazy. That, and that i also didn't care about children.
Second, explain to me why, having a baseline protection for everyone, while still allowing the free market to go on, but now with competition where there has been none for decades, is a bad thing? You can still have your overpriced medical coverage if you want.
The rich would also have to be paying taxes, for any looting to occur, as for some reason you seem to think only one group would be paying for all this, something that is also a misconception, and ignorant.
Every other industrialized civilization have universal health care for its citizens, we on the other hand, throw the sick, and afflicted out to die.
It's worked so well so far......
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed. Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless.
Concrete and timeless?
Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property? Or the one that made alcohol illegal? Those timeless and concrete laws?
Do you think these things through or just see opportunities to attack?
That's why laws should be able to change. Because obviously those laws were not based upon solid reasoning and fair judgment.
Do I think things through? You said laws should be able to be changed, which I agree with. But then you say they should be concrete and timeless?
How the hell does that work? Should be changeable, but also concrete? That's an oxymoron.
Or do you mean changed until you like them and then never changed again?
I guess you don't.
Laws 'should' be evident and clear. They should be based on fair rights and solid reasoning. Since we never are able to achieve that because of personal politics and lobbying, the laws created are flawed. There needs to be avenues to change those laws until they are correct and then they are timeless and concrete. That's how laws SHOULD be.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
In other words, my gang is bigger than yours,therefore I am right. Sorry, that's not a very convincing argument. Just because most of the industrialized world is voting for moral cannibalism, doesn't mean anyone should support such.
OK! You are out your mind, and completely brainwashed.
Every other nation is respecting BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. And becoming the better for it at the same time, they pay less for everything medical, Its more efficient.
I do not believe that you have ever been poor, or in fact, paid your own medical bills, or for that of someone with an illness. Its an impossibility with this stance you have taken.
And all you have done, is repeat yourself.
There is no, "In other words". If you cant comprehend the facts before you, you do not get to make things up, sorry.
---------- "Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
In other words if you can get your 51% to be willing to loot from the other 49%, you are cool with that. I disagree.
Not in other words. I didn't say that so don't suggest I did.
What I'm saying is that as a citizen you vote. I vote for things I like and vote agsinst things I don't like. I like the idea that everyone has coverage.
You don't like something, don't you- FISHERMAGE, tell your congressman about it? Don't you vote against people trying to implement things you don't want?
Do you Fishermage vote for politicians who will present bills YOU like and vote down ones you DON'T?
I have no idea why you are pretending you don't vote with a conscience for issues.
In other words, you VOTE so you can get your gang big enough to take away the property of one group of people and transfer it to another, and I vote against that. Pretty much what I have been saying all along. You VOTE to loot; I vote against looting.
I DO vote with a conscience, which tells me, looting is wrong. Yours doesn't. I understand that. Do you?
WTF?
He didn't say that.
Why do you hate America?
For one, Ii may even agree with you, if I also, like you, thought that all poor people are simply lazy. That, and that i also didn't care about children.
Second, explain to me why, having a baseline protection for everyone, while still allowing the free market to go on, but now with competition where there has been none for decades, is a bad thing? You can still have your overpriced medical coverage if you want.
The rich would also have to be paying taxes, for any looting to occur, as for some reason you seem to think only one group would be paying for all this, something that is also a misconception, and ignorant.
Every other industrialized civilization have universal health care for its citizens, we on the other hand, throw the sick, and afflicted out to die.
It's worked so well so far......
It's just funny that so many people think 'our' government can actually handle this seeing as they botched up so many things before. Social Security might have actually worked until the government dipped their hands into that honey pot. Whether or not they should is up for debate, I just dont think they can handle it. There are so many other things they need to fix for a government plan to have a chance. But healthcare is first before system reform.....
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
In other words, my gang is bigger than yours,therefore I am right. Sorry, that's not a very convincing argument. Just because most of the industrialized world is voting for moral cannibalism, doesn't mean anyone should support such.
OK! You are out your mind, and completely brainwashed.
Every other nation is respecting BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. And becoming the better for it at the same time, they pay less for everything medical, Its more efficient.
I do not believe that you have ever been poor, or in fact, paid your own medical bills, or for that of someone with an illness. Its an impossibility with this stance you have taken.
And all you have done, is repeat yourself.
There is no, "In other words". If you cant comprehend the facts before you, you do not get to make things up, sorry.
Where exactly are you getting these 'basic human rights'? Or are you making these up?
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed. Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless.
Concrete and timeless?
Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property? Or the one that made alcohol illegal? Those timeless and concrete laws?
Do you think these things through or just see opportunities to attack?
That's why laws should be able to change. Because obviously those laws were not based upon solid reasoning and fair judgment.
Do I think things through? You said laws should be able to be changed, which I agree with. But then you say they should be concrete and timeless?
How the hell does that work? Should be changeable, but also concrete? That's an oxymoron.
Or do you mean changed until you like them and then never changed again?
I guess you don't.
Laws 'should' be evident and clear. They should be based on fair rights and solid reasoning. Since we never are able to achieve that because of personal politics and lobbying, the laws created are flawed. There needs to be avenues to change those laws until they are correct and then they are timeless and concrete. That's how laws SHOULD be.
I agree, but who decides fair? Who decides what is correct?
That is why laws are never timeless, never concrete. Always evolving.
In other words, my gang is bigger than yours,therefore I am right. Sorry, that's not a very convincing argument. Just because most of the industrialized world is voting for moral cannibalism, doesn't mean anyone should support such.
OK! You are out your mind, and completely brainwashed.
Every other nation is respecting BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. And becoming the better for it at the same time, they pay less for everything medical, Its more efficient.
I do not believe that you have ever been poor, or in fact, paid your own medical bills, or for that of someone with an illness. Its an impossibility with this stance you have taken.
And all you have done, is repeat yourself.
There is no, "In other words". If you cant comprehend the facts before you, you do not get to make things up, sorry.
That's what Fisher does. He goes into a post already knowing what he wants to post, finds someone who kinda touches on his point, and then does the "In other words" bullshit to innacurately summarize someone's post so he can insert his crazed "point" he wants to make.
Originally posted by Fishermage Originally posted by popinjay
Originally posted by Fishermage
In other words if you can get your 51% to be willing to loot from the other 49%, you are cool with that. I disagree.
Not in other words. I didn't say that so don't suggest I did.
What I'm saying is that as a citizen you vote. I vote for things I like and vote agsinst things I don't like. I like the idea that everyone has coverage.
You don't like something, don't you- FISHERMAGE, tell your congressman about it? Don't you vote against people trying to implement things you don't want?
Do you Fishermage vote for politicians who will present bills YOU like and vote down ones you DON'T?
I have no idea why you are pretending you don't vote with a conscience for issues.
In other words, you VOTE so you can get your gang big enough to take away the property of one group of people and transfer it to another, and I vote against that. Pretty much what I have been saying all along. You VOTE to loot; I vote against looting. I DO vote with a conscience, which tells me, looting is wrong. Yours doesn't. I understand that. Do you?
In other words, I vote because it's my duty as an American citizen. Your constant attempts to characterize it as a use to form a gang is pretty stupid.
Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed. Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless.
Concrete and timeless?
Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property? Or the one that made alcohol illegal? Those timeless and concrete laws?
Do you think these things through or just see opportunities to attack?
That's why laws should be able to change. Because obviously those laws were not based upon solid reasoning and fair judgment.
Do I think things through? You said laws should be able to be changed, which I agree with. But then you say they should be concrete and timeless?
How the hell does that work? Should be changeable, but also concrete? That's an oxymoron.
Or do you mean changed until you like them and then never changed again?
I guess you don't.
Laws 'should' be evident and clear. They should be based on fair rights and solid reasoning. Since we never are able to achieve that because of personal politics and lobbying, the laws created are flawed. There needs to be avenues to change those laws until they are correct and then they are timeless and concrete. That's how laws SHOULD be.
I agree, but who decides fair? Who decides what is correct?
That is why laws are never timeless, never concrete. Always evolving.
And that's the same with what I'm getting at. Laws are not concrete at this point but they should be at some point.
Take the 10 commandments. Knocking off the obvious respect God ones, the rest are pretty clear cut. How do they need changing? . How do you need to change, Don't steal. Don't murder? That's concrete. That's timeless. Those are perfect laws.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
In other words, I vote because it's my duty as an American citizen. Your constant attempts to characterize it as a use to form a gang is pretty stupid.
Why do you vote?
Voting is not a duty. It's a right but nothing more.
"A voter therefore does not have to justify his or her vote to anyone. It can be a completely arbitrary decision. Bearing this in mind, then if it is completely arbitrary and without justification, how can it be of value to the country? It is merely what the voter wants. How can one person's want be a value to anyone else?
It therefore follows that if an individual’s vote is of no verifiable value then how do we link it to an obligation? Why should we be obliged to do something which in itself is of no value?"
Voting is not a duty. It's a right but nothing more. "A voter therefore does not have to justify his or her vote to anyone. It can be a completely arbitrary decision. Bearing this in mind, then if it is completely arbitrary and without justification, how can it be of value to the country? It is merely what the voter wants. How can one person's want be a value to anyone else? It therefore follows that if an individuals vote is of no verifiable value then how do we link it to an obligation? Why should we be obliged to do something which in itself is of no value?" Source
If you have any say as to how the country is going, it IS your duty to not sit and complain but to get out and vote.
Thanks. That pic came from your source and explains it better than you could.
EDIT: Forgot this, from your source as well.
A duty to our country?
Voting is a civic duty2
Whereas it would probably be true that most citizens feel they have an obligation to their country with regard to supporting its defence or maintaining the public treasury, one must be careful to discriminate between doing something which is for the country and something which has no tangible benefit for the country but in effect would only advantage certain politicians.
I vote for the highlighted reason because I feel that's my duty.
Voting is not a duty. It's a right but nothing more.
"A voter therefore does not have to justify his or her vote to anyone. It can be a completely arbitrary decision. Bearing this in mind, then if it is completely arbitrary and without justification, how can it be of value to the country? It is merely what the voter wants. How can one person's want be a value to anyone else?
It therefore follows that if an individual’s vote is of no verifiable value then how do we link it to an obligation? Why should we be obliged to do something which in itself is of no value?"
If you have any say as to how the country is going, it IS your duty to not sit and complain but to get out and vote.
Thanks. That pic came from your source and explains it better than you could.
EDIT: Forgot this, from your source as well.
A duty to our country?
“Voting is a civic duty”2
Whereas it would probably be true that most citizens feel they have an obligation to their country with regard to supporting its defence or maintaining the public treasury, one must be careful to discriminate between doing something which is for the country and something which has no tangible benefit for the country but in effect would only advantage certain politicians.
I vote for the highlighted reason because I feel that's my duty.
Do you have any hair because the amount of stuff that flies over it is staggering.
Notice how the pic says, Your country "needs" you. It's saying you should go out and vote, not that you have to nor is it a duty.
Some people happen to feel that government health care is not beneficial to our country. And if you want your way enforced on everyone else, you "can" go vote, but their is no duty.
Also, I can still complain about the country without having to vote. My opinion might not mean as much but I still can. There is no duty.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
When a claim is filed, most insurance companies reject it right off the bat. They first give the insured the option of paying out of pocket. Since the insured rarely do pay out of pocket, the insurance companies have to work feverishly to find some preexisting condition as a basis to deny the claim. Now, that may or may not have anything to do with the actual claim itself, but it is yet another tactic that is employed in the pursuit of profit.
Anyone who says " I don't want a bureaucrat standing between me and my doctor" obviously never had a claims administrator standing between them and their doctor.
I have had this happen, actually. It didn't work for the insurance company...and it generally doesn't - particularly if one seeks legal counsel to force the insurance company to honor their contract with you. Interestingly, if forced to seek legal counsel in such a matter, the insurance company almost always ends up paying any legal fees you incur as well (at least in some states). Part of the reason for the ridiculous premiums is specifically because the insurance companies attempt to break their contract with the policy holder, forcing the policy holder to seek legal counsel and driving up the cost for all policy holders. Perhaps if the insurance companies kept good faith and honored the contracts that they have entered into, this would not be so much of a problem? Just tossing that out there.
Apparently it works in enough cases to be profitable or it wouldn't be standard practice.
As far as "good faith" goes, don't be looking for a for-profit business to act in good faith when there's more profit to be made from acting otherwise. Stockholders are disconnected from the situation. To them, it's a victimless crime to deny coverage, it's all about the bottom line. The policy is either a wise investment or an unwise investment. Did you see what I said there...I'll be more specific, I said the wellness of a human being is either a wise or unwise 'investment'. This basis of for-profit health care makes anyone who will likely need treatment an unwise investment.
"Let them rot, we can't make any money off them" so to speak.
The sole purpose of insurance companies is to guarantee health care to the people they qualify as least likely to need health care. When someone actually needs health care the insurer attempts to deny that person the care they need. The initial intent is to sell people something they will never use. When people attempt to use what they've been sold, the insurers turn to denial and disqualification (or rescission), all to raise the profit margin.
What system could possibly be any worse?
Again, I have had a claims administrator standing between me and my doctor. I have also had Veteran's Administration employees and military personnel standing between me and my doctor. As someone who has 16 years of experience with what will surely become the nationalized healthcare Americans are ignorant (a word which means that an individual is uneducated or inexperienced in the subject and does not mean that Americans are "stupid" or "idiots") about, I would not wish such a system on my worst enemy, let alone the citizens of this nation. Again..."be careful what you wish for because you just might get it" applies here. Based on my personal experience and the experience of thousands of others who have vast experience with socialized medicine (because that is really what is being talked about here) within this nation and others, it is my strong opinion that the people who advocate a nationalized healthcare system/socialized medicine do not know what they are asking for, nor, apparently, are many of them interested in learning what it is, what it does and what it means before it is too late to change their minds.
I was raised in the VA system as a child. I also spent several years in the military as an adult. I'd much prefer that system for everyone than the current system we have. However, that is not the system that is being promoted. I am staunchly opposed to any for-profit health care system. I'm 99% certain I will be forced to compromise on that. I can only hope that whatever reform is delivered will allow everyone to receive the treatment they need. Whatever the end result, anything that leaves Americans without coverage is unacceptable, and my representatives will hear it from me and many others.
Acknowledge it or deny it, it doesn't matter. The fact remains that the ONLY WAY to reduce health care costs long term is to set up a system where the books factor in providing all Americans with health care from birth. Again, the insured and the taxpayers already pay for everyone's health care, we just wait until the ailment is dire and has to be treated far more aggressively.
Do you have any hair because the amount of stuff that flies over it is staggering. Notice how the pic says, Your country "needs" you. It's saying you should go out and vote, not that you have to nor is it a duty. Some people happen to feel that government health care is not beneficial to our country. And if you want your way enforced on everyone else, you "can" go vote, but their is no duty. Also, I can still complain about the country without having to vote. My opinion might not mean as much but I still can. There is no duty.
Question: Is all you're going to do in this thread is attack people with personal insults?
"Whereas it would probably be true that MOST citizens feel they have an obligation to their country with regard to supporting its defence or maintaining the public treasury, one must be careful to discriminate between doing something which is for the country and something which has no tangible benefit for the country but in effect would only advantage certain politicians.
Please notice that part. I am part of the "most". Apparently since you do not feel it's a "duty", you are part of the few...
To the guy telling people it is their duty to vote...
You don't have to vote. In fact, I'd prefer someone NOT to vote than to vote for a party they don't know enough about. I live in the UK and that's exactly what is happening at the moment. The British National Party, an undeniably fascist party, has been getting more votes recently because our two main parties (Labour and Conservative) are both just wishy-washy piles of crap. People feel they should vote for someone and the BNP have been taking advantage of that and have been capturing the votes of other fascists (which is fine... you can vote for who you like) but what is sad, is uninformed morons have been voting for them based on their propaganda. And unfortunately we have a lot of morons in this country. Like I said, if you're a fascist and you want to vote for the BNP, be my guest! However, it's not fair to trick people into thinking the BNP isn't fascist, racist, anti semetic etc etc And let's not forget it was formed from ex-members of the National Front, an openly neo-nazi party.
So no, you don't have to vote. I'd rather the uninformed morons who have been voting for BNP didn't vote at all. They don't fully know what the party stand for. Party of democracy, to me at least, is freedom to speak your mind, protest, the right to information and the FULL truth.
And back to the healthcare issue. As others have said... healthcare is a basic human right in this day and age. Why should you or I be allowed healthcare and someone else not, purely because we were born on the right side of the fence?
As I said, I'm from the UK where we have the National Health Service (NHS) which means everyone can have free healthcare. It's definitely not without its faults... and believe me there are plenty... But at least we don't have the corruption you have in countries where hospitals are privatized. Giving people pills they don't need, unnecessary surgery, people being refused treatment because of a mistake on their insurance forms etc etc
MMOs played (In order of how much I've liked them): Star Wars Galaxies, World of Warcraft, Vanguard, City of Villains / Heroes, Guild Wars, Warhammer Online, Age of Conan, Tabula Rasa, Anarchy Online, Ryzom, Final Fantasy XI, Matrix Online, RF Online, Rappelz, Hero Online, Roma Victor
Originally posted by popinjay Originally posted by shad0w99 To the guy telling people it is their duty to vote...
To the guy not understanding the opinion, I didn't say it's YOUR duty to vote as a British citizen.
I said it's my duty to vote. I'm not quite sure how it works in the UK nor do I particularly care about your voting obligations.
It has nothing to do with the UK or the USA... but democracy in general.
If you don't want to vote, you shouldn't have to. For example in the most recent election if someone wasn't happy with any of the parties, they shouldn't have to vote. If you're voting for something you don't believe in, it's not truly democracy. Go look up Robert Mugabe.
MMOs played (In order of how much I've liked them): Star Wars Galaxies, World of Warcraft, Vanguard, City of Villains / Heroes, Guild Wars, Warhammer Online, Age of Conan, Tabula Rasa, Anarchy Online, Ryzom, Final Fantasy XI, Matrix Online, RF Online, Rappelz, Hero Online, Roma Victor
Comments
Not in other words. I didn't say that so don't suggest I did.
What I'm saying is that as a citizen you vote. I vote for things I like and vote agsinst things I don't like. I like the idea that everyone has coverage.
You don't like something, don't you- FISHERMAGE, tell your congressman about it? Don't you vote against people trying to implement things you don't want?
Do you Fishermage vote for politicians who will present bills YOU like and vote down ones you DON'T?
I have no idea why you are pretending you don't vote with a conscience for issues.
"TO MICHAEL!"
"Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th."
All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed. Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless.
Concrete and timeless?
Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property? Or the one that made alcohol illegal? Those timeless and concrete laws?
Do you think these things through or just see opportunities to attack?
That's why laws should be able to change. Because obviously those laws were not based upon solid reasoning and fair judgment.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
Not in other words. I didn't say that so don't suggest I did.
What I'm saying is that as a citizen you vote. I vote for things I like and vote agsinst things I don't like. I like the idea that everyone has coverage.
You don't like something, don't you- FISHERMAGE, tell your congressman about it? Don't you vote against people trying to implement things you don't want?
Do you Fishermage vote for politicians who will present bills YOU like and vote down ones you DON'T?
I have no idea why you are pretending you don't vote with a conscience for issues.
In other words, you VOTE so you can get your gang big enough to take away the property of one group of people and transfer it to another, and I vote against that. Pretty much what I have been saying all along. You VOTE to loot; I vote against looting.
I DO vote with a conscience, which tells me, looting is wrong. Yours doesn't. I understand that. Do you?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed. Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless.
Concrete and timeless?
Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property? Or the one that made alcohol illegal? Those timeless and concrete laws?
Do you think these things through or just see opportunities to attack?
That's why laws should be able to change. Because obviously those laws were not based upon solid reasoning and fair judgment.
Do I think things through? You said laws should be able to be changed, which I agree with. But then you say they should be concrete and timeless?
How the hell does that work? Should be changeable, but also concrete? That's an oxymoron.
Or do you mean changed until you like them and then never changed again?
The Official God FAQ
In other words, my gang is bigger than yours,therefore I am right. Sorry, that's not a very convincing argument. Just because most of the industrialized world is voting for moral cannibalism, doesn't mean anyone should support such.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed. Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless.
Concrete and timeless?
Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property? Or the one that made alcohol illegal? Those timeless and concrete laws?
yet you believe that all we need is 51% of the people to say so, and black pople can be made property again, by vote.
i said major majority, so it would have to be more than 51% to rule without error, but in principle yes I do. Who else is supposed to decide matters like that? The American people are smart enough to know what laws are fair and correct, why not let them decide.
The Official God FAQ
The idea that somehow, if 51% say "x" is okay or a good idea or what have you really makes me uneasy. I tend to agree with Fisher on this: just because 51% say something is okay, that does not make it right in my opinion.
Say you have 100 people who are asked "should slavery be legal in the United States?" If 51 of those people say that slavery should be legalized in this country, does that then make it right to enslave others? What if the 51 vote to enslave the 49? Does the fact that the (barely) larger half of the people voting on the matter mean that, because 51 of 100 said they thought it was a good idea, the other 49 can be enslaved because they "lost" the vote?
Slavery, incidentally, is a good analogy here and one that I chose to "steal" to make the points:
1 - Just because 51% of people believe something is a good idea doesn't mean it is;
2 - When 51 people can force 49 people into subservience to them and their wishes, something is very wrong with the system.
It is my opinion that the matter should be put to a national referendum and that referendum ought to require a minimum 60% vote to pass - as should have the stimulus package and as should be the 2nd stimulus package that our country's elected leaders tell us is "on the table." If the Senate must get 60% of the votes in order to pass a bill to save the fluffy bunnies, then the people deserve no less of a majority in such a major and divisive issue. Much of the world actually requires a vote percentage spread that makes it clear that the vote is truly the will of the majority (or that the vote has at least been altered sufficiently to make it appear that way), yet here in the US, we say that 51% is a "majority" and clearly "the will of the people" when such an idea has more flaws than are mentionable in a forum.
EDIT: because typing before coffee is bad...
Firebrand Art
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
Not in other words. I didn't say that so don't suggest I did.
What I'm saying is that as a citizen you vote. I vote for things I like and vote agsinst things I don't like. I like the idea that everyone has coverage.
You don't like something, don't you- FISHERMAGE, tell your congressman about it? Don't you vote against people trying to implement things you don't want?
Do you Fishermage vote for politicians who will present bills YOU like and vote down ones you DON'T?
I have no idea why you are pretending you don't vote with a conscience for issues.
In other words, you VOTE so you can get your gang big enough to take away the property of one group of people and transfer it to another, and I vote against that. Pretty much what I have been saying all along. You VOTE to loot; I vote against looting.
I DO vote with a conscience, which tells me, looting is wrong. Yours doesn't. I understand that. Do you?
WTF?
He didn't say that.
Why do you hate America?
For one, Ii may even agree with you, if I also, like you, thought that all poor people are simply lazy. That, and that i also didn't care about children.
Second, explain to me why, having a baseline protection for everyone, while still allowing the free market to go on, but now with competition where there has been none for decades, is a bad thing? You can still have your overpriced medical coverage if you want.
The rich would also have to be paying taxes, for any looting to occur, as for some reason you seem to think only one group would be paying for all this, something that is also a misconception, and ignorant.
Every other industrialized civilization have universal health care for its citizens, we on the other hand, throw the sick, and afflicted out to die.
It's worked so well so far......
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed. Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless.
Concrete and timeless?
Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property? Or the one that made alcohol illegal? Those timeless and concrete laws?
Do you think these things through or just see opportunities to attack?
That's why laws should be able to change. Because obviously those laws were not based upon solid reasoning and fair judgment.
Do I think things through? You said laws should be able to be changed, which I agree with. But then you say they should be concrete and timeless?
How the hell does that work? Should be changeable, but also concrete? That's an oxymoron.
Or do you mean changed until you like them and then never changed again?
I guess you don't.
Laws 'should' be evident and clear. They should be based on fair rights and solid reasoning. Since we never are able to achieve that because of personal politics and lobbying, the laws created are flawed. There needs to be avenues to change those laws until they are correct and then they are timeless and concrete. That's how laws SHOULD be.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
In other words, my gang is bigger than yours,therefore I am right. Sorry, that's not a very convincing argument. Just because most of the industrialized world is voting for moral cannibalism, doesn't mean anyone should support such.
OK! You are out your mind, and completely brainwashed.
Every other nation is respecting BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. And becoming the better for it at the same time, they pay less for everything medical, Its more efficient.
I do not believe that you have ever been poor, or in fact, paid your own medical bills, or for that of someone with an illness. Its an impossibility with this stance you have taken.
And all you have done, is repeat yourself.
There is no, "In other words". If you cant comprehend the facts before you, you do not get to make things up, sorry.
----------
"Anyone posting on this forum is not an average user, and there for any opinions about the game are going to be overly critical compared to an average users opinions." - Me
"No, your wrong.." - Random user #123
"Hello person posting on a site specifically for MMO's in a thread on a sub forum specifically for a particular game talking about meta features and making comparisons to other titles in the genre, and their meta features.
How are you?" -Me
Not in other words. I didn't say that so don't suggest I did.
What I'm saying is that as a citizen you vote. I vote for things I like and vote agsinst things I don't like. I like the idea that everyone has coverage.
You don't like something, don't you- FISHERMAGE, tell your congressman about it? Don't you vote against people trying to implement things you don't want?
Do you Fishermage vote for politicians who will present bills YOU like and vote down ones you DON'T?
I have no idea why you are pretending you don't vote with a conscience for issues.
In other words, you VOTE so you can get your gang big enough to take away the property of one group of people and transfer it to another, and I vote against that. Pretty much what I have been saying all along. You VOTE to loot; I vote against looting.
I DO vote with a conscience, which tells me, looting is wrong. Yours doesn't. I understand that. Do you?
WTF?
He didn't say that.
Why do you hate America?
For one, Ii may even agree with you, if I also, like you, thought that all poor people are simply lazy. That, and that i also didn't care about children.
Second, explain to me why, having a baseline protection for everyone, while still allowing the free market to go on, but now with competition where there has been none for decades, is a bad thing? You can still have your overpriced medical coverage if you want.
The rich would also have to be paying taxes, for any looting to occur, as for some reason you seem to think only one group would be paying for all this, something that is also a misconception, and ignorant.
Every other industrialized civilization have universal health care for its citizens, we on the other hand, throw the sick, and afflicted out to die.
It's worked so well so far......
It's just funny that so many people think 'our' government can actually handle this seeing as they botched up so many things before. Social Security might have actually worked until the government dipped their hands into that honey pot. Whether or not they should is up for debate, I just dont think they can handle it. There are so many other things they need to fix for a government plan to have a chance. But healthcare is first before system reform.....
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
In other words, my gang is bigger than yours,therefore I am right. Sorry, that's not a very convincing argument. Just because most of the industrialized world is voting for moral cannibalism, doesn't mean anyone should support such.
OK! You are out your mind, and completely brainwashed.
Every other nation is respecting BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. And becoming the better for it at the same time, they pay less for everything medical, Its more efficient.
I do not believe that you have ever been poor, or in fact, paid your own medical bills, or for that of someone with an illness. Its an impossibility with this stance you have taken.
And all you have done, is repeat yourself.
There is no, "In other words". If you cant comprehend the facts before you, you do not get to make things up, sorry.
Where exactly are you getting these 'basic human rights'? Or are you making these up?
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed. Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless.
Concrete and timeless?
Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property? Or the one that made alcohol illegal? Those timeless and concrete laws?
Do you think these things through or just see opportunities to attack?
That's why laws should be able to change. Because obviously those laws were not based upon solid reasoning and fair judgment.
Do I think things through? You said laws should be able to be changed, which I agree with. But then you say they should be concrete and timeless?
How the hell does that work? Should be changeable, but also concrete? That's an oxymoron.
Or do you mean changed until you like them and then never changed again?
I guess you don't.
Laws 'should' be evident and clear. They should be based on fair rights and solid reasoning. Since we never are able to achieve that because of personal politics and lobbying, the laws created are flawed. There needs to be avenues to change those laws until they are correct and then they are timeless and concrete. That's how laws SHOULD be.
I agree, but who decides fair? Who decides what is correct?
That is why laws are never timeless, never concrete. Always evolving.
The Official God FAQ
In other words, my gang is bigger than yours,therefore I am right. Sorry, that's not a very convincing argument. Just because most of the industrialized world is voting for moral cannibalism, doesn't mean anyone should support such.
OK! You are out your mind, and completely brainwashed.
Every other nation is respecting BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. And becoming the better for it at the same time, they pay less for everything medical, Its more efficient.
I do not believe that you have ever been poor, or in fact, paid your own medical bills, or for that of someone with an illness. Its an impossibility with this stance you have taken.
And all you have done, is repeat yourself.
There is no, "In other words". If you cant comprehend the facts before you, you do not get to make things up, sorry.
That's what Fisher does. He goes into a post already knowing what he wants to post, finds someone who kinda touches on his point, and then does the "In other words" bullshit to innacurately summarize someone's post so he can insert his crazed "point" he wants to make.
That's how he has always functioned.
The Official God FAQ
Not in other words. I didn't say that so don't suggest I did.
What I'm saying is that as a citizen you vote. I vote for things I like and vote agsinst things I don't like. I like the idea that everyone has coverage.
You don't like something, don't you- FISHERMAGE, tell your congressman about it? Don't you vote against people trying to implement things you don't want?
Do you Fishermage vote for politicians who will present bills YOU like and vote down ones you DON'T?
I have no idea why you are pretending you don't vote with a conscience for issues.
In other words, you VOTE so you can get your gang big enough to take away the property of one group of people and transfer it to another, and I vote against that. Pretty much what I have been saying all along. You VOTE to loot; I vote against looting.
I DO vote with a conscience, which tells me, looting is wrong. Yours doesn't. I understand that. Do you?
In other words, I vote because it's my duty as an American citizen. Your constant attempts to characterize it as a use to form a gang is pretty stupid.
Why do you vote?
"TO MICHAEL!"
Laws should be able to be adjusted and changed. Laws are meant to be concrete and timeless.
Concrete and timeless?
Like the law that said black people are property, or the one that says women can't vote or own property? Or the one that made alcohol illegal? Those timeless and concrete laws?
Do you think these things through or just see opportunities to attack?
That's why laws should be able to change. Because obviously those laws were not based upon solid reasoning and fair judgment.
Do I think things through? You said laws should be able to be changed, which I agree with. But then you say they should be concrete and timeless?
How the hell does that work? Should be changeable, but also concrete? That's an oxymoron.
Or do you mean changed until you like them and then never changed again?
I guess you don't.
Laws 'should' be evident and clear. They should be based on fair rights and solid reasoning. Since we never are able to achieve that because of personal politics and lobbying, the laws created are flawed. There needs to be avenues to change those laws until they are correct and then they are timeless and concrete. That's how laws SHOULD be.
I agree, but who decides fair? Who decides what is correct?
That is why laws are never timeless, never concrete. Always evolving.
And that's the same with what I'm getting at. Laws are not concrete at this point but they should be at some point.
Take the 10 commandments. Knocking off the obvious respect God ones, the rest are pretty clear cut. How do they need changing? . How do you need to change, Don't steal. Don't murder? That's concrete. That's timeless. Those are perfect laws.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
In other words, I vote because it's my duty as an American citizen. Your constant attempts to characterize it as a use to form a gang is pretty stupid.
Why do you vote?
Voting is not a duty. It's a right but nothing more.
"A voter therefore does not have to justify his or her vote to anyone. It can be a completely arbitrary decision. Bearing this in mind, then if it is completely arbitrary and without justification, how can it be of value to the country? It is merely what the voter wants. How can one person's want be a value to anyone else?
It therefore follows that if an individual’s vote is of no verifiable value then how do we link it to an obligation? Why should we be obliged to do something which in itself is of no value?"
Source
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
If you have any say as to how the country is going, it IS your duty to not sit and complain but to get out and vote.
Thanks. That pic came from your source and explains it better than you could.
EDIT: Forgot this, from your source as well.
I vote for the highlighted reason because I feel that's my duty.
"TO MICHAEL!"
If you have any say as to how the country is going, it IS your duty to not sit and complain but to get out and vote.
Thanks. That pic came from your source and explains it better than you could.
EDIT: Forgot this, from your source as well.
I vote for the highlighted reason because I feel that's my duty.
Do you have any hair because the amount of stuff that flies over it is staggering.
Notice how the pic says, Your country "needs" you. It's saying you should go out and vote, not that you have to nor is it a duty.
Some people happen to feel that government health care is not beneficial to our country. And if you want your way enforced on everyone else, you "can" go vote, but their is no duty.
Also, I can still complain about the country without having to vote. My opinion might not mean as much but I still can. There is no duty.
When a piscating wizard floods every thread I can understand why people leave.
I have had this happen, actually. It didn't work for the insurance company...and it generally doesn't - particularly if one seeks legal counsel to force the insurance company to honor their contract with you. Interestingly, if forced to seek legal counsel in such a matter, the insurance company almost always ends up paying any legal fees you incur as well (at least in some states). Part of the reason for the ridiculous premiums is specifically because the insurance companies attempt to break their contract with the policy holder, forcing the policy holder to seek legal counsel and driving up the cost for all policy holders. Perhaps if the insurance companies kept good faith and honored the contracts that they have entered into, this would not be so much of a problem? Just tossing that out there.
Apparently it works in enough cases to be profitable or it wouldn't be standard practice.
As far as "good faith" goes, don't be looking for a for-profit business to act in good faith when there's more profit to be made from acting otherwise. Stockholders are disconnected from the situation. To them, it's a victimless crime to deny coverage, it's all about the bottom line. The policy is either a wise investment or an unwise investment. Did you see what I said there...I'll be more specific, I said the wellness of a human being is either a wise or unwise 'investment'. This basis of for-profit health care makes anyone who will likely need treatment an unwise investment.
"Let them rot, we can't make any money off them" so to speak.
The sole purpose of insurance companies is to guarantee health care to the people they qualify as least likely to need health care. When someone actually needs health care the insurer attempts to deny that person the care they need. The initial intent is to sell people something they will never use. When people attempt to use what they've been sold, the insurers turn to denial and disqualification (or rescission), all to raise the profit margin.
What system could possibly be any worse?
Again, I have had a claims administrator standing between me and my doctor. I have also had Veteran's Administration employees and military personnel standing between me and my doctor. As someone who has 16 years of experience with what will surely become the nationalized healthcare Americans are ignorant (a word which means that an individual is uneducated or inexperienced in the subject and does not mean that Americans are "stupid" or "idiots") about, I would not wish such a system on my worst enemy, let alone the citizens of this nation. Again..."be careful what you wish for because you just might get it" applies here. Based on my personal experience and the experience of thousands of others who have vast experience with socialized medicine (because that is really what is being talked about here) within this nation and others, it is my strong opinion that the people who advocate a nationalized healthcare system/socialized medicine do not know what they are asking for, nor, apparently, are many of them interested in learning what it is, what it does and what it means before it is too late to change their minds.
I was raised in the VA system as a child. I also spent several years in the military as an adult. I'd much prefer that system for everyone than the current system we have. However, that is not the system that is being promoted. I am staunchly opposed to any for-profit health care system. I'm 99% certain I will be forced to compromise on that. I can only hope that whatever reform is delivered will allow everyone to receive the treatment they need. Whatever the end result, anything that leaves Americans without coverage is unacceptable, and my representatives will hear it from me and many others.
Acknowledge it or deny it, it doesn't matter. The fact remains that the ONLY WAY to reduce health care costs long term is to set up a system where the books factor in providing all Americans with health care from birth. Again, the insured and the taxpayers already pay for everyone's health care, we just wait until the ailment is dire and has to be treated far more aggressively.
Question: Is all you're going to do in this thread is attack people with personal insults?
"Whereas it would probably be true that MOST citizens feel they have an obligation to their country with regard to supporting its defence or maintaining the public treasury, one must be careful to discriminate between doing something which is for the country and something which has no tangible benefit for the country but in effect would only advantage certain politicians.
Please notice that part. I am part of the "most". Apparently since you do not feel it's a "duty", you are part of the few...
"TO MICHAEL!"
To the guy telling people it is their duty to vote...
You don't have to vote. In fact, I'd prefer someone NOT to vote than to vote for a party they don't know enough about. I live in the UK and that's exactly what is happening at the moment. The British National Party, an undeniably fascist party, has been getting more votes recently because our two main parties (Labour and Conservative) are both just wishy-washy piles of crap. People feel they should vote for someone and the BNP have been taking advantage of that and have been capturing the votes of other fascists (which is fine... you can vote for who you like) but what is sad, is uninformed morons have been voting for them based on their propaganda. And unfortunately we have a lot of morons in this country. Like I said, if you're a fascist and you want to vote for the BNP, be my guest! However, it's not fair to trick people into thinking the BNP isn't fascist, racist, anti semetic etc etc And let's not forget it was formed from ex-members of the National Front, an openly neo-nazi party.
So no, you don't have to vote. I'd rather the uninformed morons who have been voting for BNP didn't vote at all. They don't fully know what the party stand for. Party of democracy, to me at least, is freedom to speak your mind, protest, the right to information and the FULL truth.
And back to the healthcare issue. As others have said... healthcare is a basic human right in this day and age. Why should you or I be allowed healthcare and someone else not, purely because we were born on the right side of the fence?
As I said, I'm from the UK where we have the National Health Service (NHS) which means everyone can have free healthcare. It's definitely not without its faults... and believe me there are plenty... But at least we don't have the corruption you have in countries where hospitals are privatized. Giving people pills they don't need, unnecessary surgery, people being refused treatment because of a mistake on their insurance forms etc etc
MMOs played (In order of how much I've liked them): Star Wars Galaxies, World of Warcraft, Vanguard, City of Villains / Heroes, Guild Wars, Warhammer Online, Age of Conan, Tabula Rasa, Anarchy Online, Ryzom, Final Fantasy XI, Matrix Online, RF Online, Rappelz, Hero Online, Roma Victor
I said it's my duty to vote. I'm not quite sure how it works in the UK nor do I particularly care about your voting obligations.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I said it's my duty to vote. I'm not quite sure how it works in the UK nor do I particularly care about your voting obligations.
It has nothing to do with the UK or the USA... but democracy in general.
If you don't want to vote, you shouldn't have to. For example in the most recent election if someone wasn't happy with any of the parties, they shouldn't have to vote. If you're voting for something you don't believe in, it's not truly democracy. Go look up Robert Mugabe.
MMOs played (In order of how much I've liked them): Star Wars Galaxies, World of Warcraft, Vanguard, City of Villains / Heroes, Guild Wars, Warhammer Online, Age of Conan, Tabula Rasa, Anarchy Online, Ryzom, Final Fantasy XI, Matrix Online, RF Online, Rappelz, Hero Online, Roma Victor