Leonebluen

Even prior to an arc though you're supposed to see marginal changes.

Using the 2010 numbers, the above holds true. Not sure there's a better metric/study available for discussing this topic.

And finally, I really wish all the states would get on board, some are just hurting themselves for ideological purposes as things stand. I don't know if the law will pass/fail, but it'd be nice to see it get an actual chance rather than be predestined for failure by zealots who will do anything for an "I told you so" moment/

And of course you can't demonstrate any unsupported claims, nor can you actually talk about the issue at hand. *Yawn* You're boring ZD.

 

You are such a narcissist that you don't even realize what you just did!

Obviously I have no idea what this nonsense is supposed to mean. That logical fallacy is about directing attention away from a substantive issue by pointing out PREVIOUS logical fallacies. You had nothing of meaning in your post for me to deflect attention from, and your logical fallacy was immediately at hand. If you're going to be such a worthless troll, then "I am plan" on ignoring you too.

 

That's a pretty massive misunderstanding of healthcare in America. Economies of scale is THE #1 issue. Well, that and for-profit health insurance companies. But if you double a population from 100 million to 200 million, it doesn't become twice as difficult to maintain their relative health.

 

The reason universal health care works so efficiently and so well (assuming it does) in (much) smaller countries is precisely because they don't have the exponential problems a much larger population does. And of *course* they require much fewer hospitals. That should be obvious.

 

And with that, I'll get back to my lol'ing at every post in this thread - including mine.

Healthcare difficulties aren't as exponentially correlated with population as you might think. France has nearly 20x the population of Belgium, and spends about the same (per capita) on health care. Nevertheless, France is still ranked #1 in the world for healthcare by the WHO. Now, granted, exponential functions curve, but why is that curve not demonstrated whatsoever when you shift from 3.5m all the way up to 65m people?

Additionally, the state system also helps alleviate the burden of scaling.

What unsupported claims have I made here ZD? You're so cute when you're being irrational. I literally have said nothing for or against Obamacare on this thread.

PS - This:

 

Weak to someone who cannot provide evidence of his own to back up his own unsupported claims.

Is this: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

 

NOFX, perhaps I did not explain myself well but I do have a feeling you knew exactly what I was talking about but were looking for a cheap shot. Perhaps I deserved it because I cannot give any of you an inch nor can I assume you understand my meaning without detailed explanation. I will keep that in mind. Keep in mind that you are the one that introduced us all to the site about logical fallacies and perhaps this one applies to the current topic.

 

Even when he finally admits his logical fallacy ZD throws blame back on others. Adorable.

 

Lol. You have 11.14 million people.

 

We have 313 million.

 

You have roughly the size of Ohio.

 

Come back when your country has its big boy pants on.

 

It's easy to treat ~3.5% of a problem.

Most countries with universal health care have a much smaller population in the U.S., and ZD was talking about such countries. Additionally, believe it or not, they also have many less hospitals. Population is a pretty weak counter here.

They kind of already are a reward for playing well, though. Killing infected gives points, points give fheals. *shrugs*

Nothing like cherry-picking. You go ZD, you go gurl.

PS - I repeat, you've engaged in just as many personal attacks if not more. Stop trying to play the victim. Calling people uneducated, willfully ignorant, and blind "none stop" is not particularly mature either.

Uhm, again, ZD, show me somewhere in this thread where I've actually defended Obamacare. I haven't, yet you keep claiming I have.

Moreover, I didn't defend Priscilla's post. I just countered your misinterpretation of one small part of it.

 

I'm not sure what you expect from anyone when all you've done is insult and attack someone who is critical of a terrible law. You've ignored every other link and piece of evidence provided. You are the typical liberal troll and we've honestly got enough of those here already.

I don't know. Maybe you could *gasp* look at what I ACTUALLY SAID ABOUT THE LAW. Wow, that's crazy, right? Actually considering what someone's stated political belief is.... nuts.

I've been totally neutral on the law. The fact that you label me a radical liberal troll just because I think the law is too complex for our predictions to be accurate is pathetic. I've been neutral towards Obamacare, and the fact that you call my neutrality "radical" just shows how extreme YOU are.

Yeah, I've spent the whole thread attacking you, because you refuse to admit you misunderstood two things. As I've said, it has nothing to do with your ideology, it has to do with calling people out when they mess up. You're doing a great job of that for everyone else, I just figured why not afford you the same courtesy. For example, Priscilla mistakenly called Tom Daschle a Republican. For example, Clueless misunderstood what his premium would be if he had no income. However, those issues were both resolved by others (in one case you), and the facts were accepted. You, however, when confronted with your own misunderstandings, decided to label me an uneducated liberal troll, rather than accept a simple fact.

And PS - I've already covered why I'm ignoring your links. For every negative link, there's a positive one elsewhere. I'm not assuming a "for" or "against" position on Obamcare because it's too complex for predictions to be accurate, WHICH I'VE SAID. Thus, I have no interest in engaging in a debate with someone who is positive that it will fail. I don't know if you're going to be wrong or right, I've said as much. Why would I debate your negative links when I think they may very well end up being correct?

 

without any condescending insults about how I am a moron and you are a genius.

Also, REALLY? You've thrown around nothing but condescending insults about how I'm supposedly uneducated, blind, and willfully ignorant, yet YOU'RE trying to play the victim? Get, over, yourself.

Upon review of this thread, I think it might be accurate to say that ZD spent the entire time trying to debate his perception of me, rather than anything I actually said. Kind of adorable.

Edit: Awh, are you upset that I insulted your intelligence? I'd feel bad if you hadn't done the same thing nearly a dozen times.

Alright, I'm done messing with ZD. I shouldn't pick on him just because he can't recognize his own hypocrisy. Back to actual political discussion with people who actually have questions to be answered.

You complain about my straw-man arguments, but you've spent this whole thread saying I'm defending Obama and the ACA, when I've never said any such things. I've asked you for a quote on that matter three times, and you refuse to provide one. Because, you, can't.

You call me narrow minded, but you're the one who labeled me as a liberal Obamacare supporter without any substantive reason to do so (besides the fact that I'm supposedly uneducated). Seriously, I'm still waiting on a quote.

Speaking of which, you want to talk about ad-hominem attcks? Yeah, calling me uneducated and uninformed about 5 times pretty much defines ad-hominem.

You've made so many assumptions about me on this thread, and it's really perverse logic. I criticize the way you represent ONE article and ONE quote, and then you label me an uneducated liberal Obama supporter (even though I say I'm neutral on the law). Then you label me overly biased and unable to accept it when people are critical of my ideology, which is EXACTLY what you were unable to accept.

If you don't care, then go away, and don't come back until you're done being a hypocrite.

For Baloosh: I kind of like the sound of ZeroBlue.

You brought yourself into it, now you shall pay the price. Muahahahahaha.

Alternative retort: Hey, ZD brought you into it, I'm just keeping you here.

My bad, I've replaced "idiot" with "You are uneducated and clueless."

Actually that brings up a good question. I've been wondering how script tanks get assigned. I think they actually do go to the person with the highest points/dmg done in a round, but I'm not sure.

On point though, your sensationalism is cute, but it ignores the fact that most of your comparisons are not equivalent to the issue at hand. We're talking about auto-suiciding spitters that have already had their chance to make a play, not auto-suiciding them before they can.

Man Baloosh, you're harsh.

Cut me some slack? I'm not really debating politics here so much as I am mocking ZD's inability to handle anything that isn't die-hard conservative ideology. I haven't said much about the law at all, contrary to what he seems to think. It's a fun way to kill time between classes.

The only person engaging in the straw-man fallacy is you, ZD, for calling me a liberal defender of Obamacare. I just said it's too early to tell what's going to happen, and you've repeatedly claimed I'm defending the law. Nevertheless, you of course ignore my pleas for you to actually QUOTE something I've said that actually predicts the law will have a positive effect. That's because I've never said any such thing, and, of course, you're blatantly lying about me and my position.

 

 

... my educational pedigree

 

Good Lord someone actually used this phrase in a serious carepost.

 

I don't care about anything going on between the participants in this thread (other than simply reading it for amusement) but this is the most pretentious, worthless, ridiculous bit of elitism I've read in quite a long time.

 

Well played.

 

Thanks, that was the point. I was really trying to emulate/parody my good friend ZD here. Which brings me to...

ZD.

First, I would like to point out that you spent most of your post insulting an article that you posted here. Moreover, you never actually quoted a part of the article which substantiated the comment you made with it. Yes, it says bad things are happening, but I repeat, it never says that Obamacare is going to make things worse, which is supposedly "what you gathered from it."

Second, I would again like to laugh at you because I already pointed out that I didn't use a straw-man argument, which you never addressed. You accused me of the straw-man fallacy for saying I worked in health care.

Here's the quote to prove it:

 

Love the straw-man argument. I know so-and-so and they do this or that so that validates my otherwise invalid argument.

You're uneducated and clueless. You just linked something proving you had no clue what the straw-man fallacy is.

Third, this is why I made my last post a parody of you, ZD.

 

And then there is the ad-hominem

I would like to remind you of the following:

 

 

I don't need to ask you what your ideology is to know that you are a liberal. You are not only uneducated and clueless as to the day-to-day happenings in this country when it comes to Obamacare, but probably everything else as well.

 

you are obviously as ignorant of your surroundings as I thought.

 

willfully ignorant

 

typical dishonest tactic

 

This is common for leftists when presented with the facts, reason, and common sense. Reject, deny, insult, then expect those you disagree with to just accept it and run away.

My favorite of these, though, is the following:

 

Obama Sycophants who've had their heads in the sand for the past 5 years.When you refuse to actual report the facts and ignore everyone critical to your ideology, you and your low information readers will find all of this surprising when in reality it has been known and expected.

You see, this is quintessential ZD hypocrisy. I have said nothing in this thread endorsing Obama or the ACA, all I've done is be critical of your negative ideology, and you ignore everything I have to say.

In other words, ZD, you're a hypocrite. I played you a bit, and you cried foul, and it's hilarious.

Personally, I oppose the diminishing returns option for the fullheal nerf. Here's why: although it sounds nice, the truth is that this type of nerf disproportionately affects different maps. For example, it would do nothing to the survivors on short maps, and it would make the longest maps nearly impossible to complete. Sure, it would have its intended effects on the mid-length maps, but it wouldn't properly affect shorter and longer maps.

I'd say a base nerf would be better overall, because it would make all the maps comparably more difficult, rather than leaving short maps easy and long-maps impossible.

You still haven't given a reason why holding spitters is fundamentally different from rushing.

Please address the fact that rushing is bad because it hurts the team, and holding spitters is bad because it hurts the team. Therefore, why can't they both be rules? We're not talking about kicking people for holding spitters, just automatically stopping them from doing so.

 

People have to kind of work around people holding spitters, and that unfortunately is to buy up the limit so you can spawn more in. You can't compensate for rushing, but you can for spitters...a little bit.

Whether or not you can compensate is irrelevant to whether or not something should be a rule. For that matter, you can compensate for a rusher by rushing with them, it just doesn't work too tell.

 

The universal mentality of the game is that if you're by yourself, you WILL die.

The rule of the game as infected is that if you don't work together, you will lose. What's the difference?

 

Hope you all have been paying attention. Lots and lots of news about Obamacare. Here is one from USA Today of all places. It's only going to get worse.

 

http://www.usatoday....b-cuts/2947929/

This article was not news about Obamacare making things worse. In fact, it didn't even say things are going to get worse. This has been the same comment I've been referencing the entire time, and you know it.

Then you said:

 

I back up my claims with sources. When I have an opinion based on experience and common sense, I tend to say that it is my opinion.

Considering you made a claim and paired it with a link, this seems accurate. Of course, since your claim and your source were completely opposed to one another, it was obvious you didn't read your own source.

Then you said:

 

Guy, I've been linking articles in these forums for a long time. I do not misrepresent anything; I comment on what I gathered from it.

And again, if you were commenting on what you gathered from the article, then why didn't the article match what you "gathered" at all?

Now you say:

 

Take different comments out of context, put them together and create something new in the hopes that no one else confirms the informatioin. I've posted multiple different links in this thread and for whatever reason you are focusing on this one and grasping at straws.

I'm harping on this one because I want you to admit your own bias. You have yet to admit the simple fact that you, messed, up. I'm laughing at you becaue you're trying sooo hard to avoid that simple truth. You obviously didn't read the entire article before you posted it here. Now you're trying to deflect the conversation away from your own comment. Why? Because you know your comment was laughable.

Why would I bother going through and mocking everything you link when you're so unwilling to even deal with this one? Your tactic is just to shift your position and link some other new "evidence" any time you're debunked, so that would just be a waste of my time.

Speaking of shifting your position:

 

Since when has the government ever made anything better, especially when they should not be involved in it in the first place.

Per this original question, my answers were all legitimate. Now, though, you mock me because you say:

 

I've always found this argument funny in that it shows how ignorant people really are about government and what it does and doesn't actually do. The Government does not build the highways, private contractors do. The government doesn't have agents in the fields doing agriculture.

Huh, funny, nowhere in your original question did you reference a necessary governmental role. You implied the government never makes things better, I gave you examples otherwise, and now you slightly shift your position so you can claim I'm "wrong" and "ignorant." Per your original question, the government only had to be involved. My examples meet that criteria, but now they're illegitimate because the government wasn't the chief operating agent? You're engaging in a logical fallacy, ZD. Stop trying to dodge issues by reframing your points and calling me uneducated. It's not constructive.

Now, beyond your petty insults, please tell me what liberal ideology I've espoused in this thread? So far, your only argument is that I've disagreed with you, which is a downright idiotic basis for your conclusion. Sorry, ZD, but pointing out your logical failures doesn't say anything about my political ideology. I reference you back to: You're so locked into a "conservative or wrong" dichotomy that if I say anything you wouldn't hear on a conservative talk-show, you think it's liberal blasphemy.

I'm not attacking you because you're a conservative, ZD. I'm attacking you because you're a condescending jerk who misrepresents information and shifts his position whenever he gets countered.

Please, tell me where I have actually said something ideologically liberal. I repeat another part of my post you ignored:

You keep typecasting me as a super-liberal but I have not given you substantive reason to do so. I said you're overly pessimistic about the future of a ridiculously complex law because it's too early to actually tell the effect it'll have. I have consistently said that, at least three times. There is nothing partisan about that. The only person being overly-partisan here is you, ZD.

THIS is precisely why I think you're unqualified to participate in politics. If someone disagrees with you, instead of actually discussing the facts you immediately dismiss them as an uneducated liberal, which is amusing because I guarantee my educational pedigree and political experience dwarfs yours you overly-partisan, politically illiterate troll. Yeah, two can play the meaningless insult game.

I'm done dealing with you now. You're either a troll or an outright liar. You refuse to deal with issues at hand, and instead you just rely on petty insults and ignoring the parts where you're proven wrong. Go back to your little troll cave and wait for the government to ruin the world. I'm sure the drudge report will confirm that hypothesis, but as a person who reads from both sides, I can tell you the evidence is decidedly mixed, and we're just going to have to wait to find out what will happen. You might be right in the end, I've never even said otherwise, but as of yet it's far too early to tell. After this I'm sure you'll whine about my personal attacks, but the truth is you've been engaging in that behavior since I first had the misfortune of dealing with you on this forum.

A lot of it depends on the quality of the program you get from work. My family's costs would go up dramatically as well, but that's probably because our coverage is fantastic (one person works for a hospital, another for a non-profit that assigns hospitals grants). However, some of my poorer relatives say they're paying about the same, and a guy I know who owns a popcorn store (which is a surprisingly profitable enterprise, I found out), says his operational costs are decreasing. I'm really curious if these will be trends or not.

But yeah, people making lots of money best keep their work insurance, but for the most part I doubt they have much to worry about.

Actually, I think rushing is the best possible example.

You say:

 

It was implied that by 'a certain way' both ways of playing would be acceptable. Rushing is deemed unacceptable and thus doesn't pertain to the 'ways of playing the game' being discussed here.

My question for you, though, is why is rushing deemed unacceptable? I agree that it's unacceptable, but I believe it's unacceptable because it undermines teamwork and ultimately hurts your chances of success.. People holding spitters is bad for the same, exact, reasons.

For Clueless: http://finder.healthcare.gov/

It's pretty slow, so be patient.

 

Who said I was talking about that specific article.

Oh, so you linked an article, and then left a comment alongside it, but really your comment had nothing to do with that article, even though you yourself said:

 

I comment on what I gathered from it

ZD, just stop. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point. You've tried every possible tactic and lie to dodge the simple fact that you don't read your own articles. First you ignored my point, then you said you were just commenting, now you're saying you weren't commenting. It's laughable at best.

 

Again, I could care less if you believe it. I doubt for one that you work in the profession and even if you do, your political ideology blinds you to the truth. Nevermind the fact that you do not even pay attention to current events. If you did, you would be aware of the disaster taking place right now because of Obamacare.

Dude, you don't even know my political ideology. You keep typecasting me as a super-liberal but I have not given you substantive reason to do so. I said you're overly pessimistic about the future of a ridiculously complex law because it's too early to actually tell the effect it'll have. I have consistently said that, at least three times. There is nothing partisan about that. The only person being overly-partisan here is you, ZD. You're so locked into a "conservative or wrong" dichotomy that if I say anything you wouldn't hear on a conservative talk-show, you think it's liberal blasphemy. I say you're overzealous and then you say I'm overly partisan? Get, over, yourself. PS - You say you don't care, but your nearly four thousand forum posts on a site where most people think you're borderline insane says otherwise.

The closest thing to liberalism I've shared is that universal health care has been effective in other countries. However, that's not partisan, that's just fact. Look at France.

The health care market has been a disaster for years, and you're harping on a law that hasn't even gone into full-effect yet. You have no grasp on reality if you honestly think you can accurately predict what's going to happen. Ivy League economists can't even agree on what will happen.

 

Since when has the government ever made anything better, especially when they should not be involved in it in the first place.

Highways, scientific research, agriculture, national parks even. I'm pretty glad that labor condition laws exist, how about you? If we're not just talking federal then firefighters and police too! The list is much longer, I just tried to give relatively diverse examples.

If you don't qualify for subsidies then you can either keep your coverage or buy the plans the gov't offers, yes. But if you don't qualify for subsidies, then you just pick your plan type/level of coverage and pay what it costs.

 

And that's exactly the problem. You believe exactly what you want to believe in the media. Despite all the supposed positive things that were going to happen with Obamacare, none of that has happened and those that warned about it were ignored by people like you. Even now with the proof right there for all to see, you only process what you want to hear and see. This kind of willful ignorance is how we got in this situation in the first place.

 

Please, PLEASE, direct me to a quote from the article that says Obamacare is going to make the healthcare market worse. You say I have willful ignorance, but you never actually reference any specific parts of the article that match your original claim. Probably because you can't, but please, try to prove me wrong here. The last two paragraphs of the article in question, I contend, point to Obamcare reversing the problem of layoffs, not worsening it.

 

I've always loved this flawed logic from the left. Unless I work in healthcare I cannot have an opinion because it is immediately disqualified. But that logic only applies to you because my first hand experience in the military isn't relevant.

Your first hand experience in the military was as an external viewer of what, a waiting room? You honestly have no information about what was happening behind the scenes in that hospital. All you know is the number of people there, which tells you almost nothing. I'm dismissing your experience because your experience is paltry. A lot of people in a hospital doesn't mean the hospital is overburdened; it's all about staff to patient ratios and the quality of the system in place.

The point is protection for the buyer Fenix, not to stop spamming. If it's longer than it needs to be for protection, then that's all the reason needed to change it. You have the points, then spam as you wish.