Baldurs Gate 2 and Deus Ex for me - two truely outstanding games that are still great to play even now. Neverwinter nights meanwhile was great if you wanted to build your own RPG (although the core campaign didn't come close to the heights of BG2 IMO).
[quote] by your own argument, if any one of us clicked the "report" button you will be banned. Since not only are you disagreeing with brad, you are accusing him of banning anyone who disagrees with him [/quote] Seems you follow the JU belief that if you keep repeating something obviously false, sooner or later a few people might think it's true. Gets pretty pathetic when that's all you seem capable of doing to try and counter someones argument.
JoeUser Forums
[quote] Except, the government in this case decides to "buy"...it off the farmers for LESS MONEY than people have previously paid for it; and in fact, the government is "buying" it for such a low price that the farmer is LOSING MONEY per sale[/quote] If they do that then they won't be able to get enough eggs to meet people's demand, hence they won't (if they're looking to ensure no shortage of supply). I feel like I'm having to repeat myself about 10 times here to get the poin
JoeUser Forums
[quote] Why would the health insurance pay more than the open market? If it doesn't, supplies will remain at current levels. [/quote] Again, [quote] Why would the health insurance pay more than the open market? [b]The market rate will have gone up, not remained constant. [/b] [/quote]
[quote] Whatever happened to CIVIL debate? It's alive and well here on JU [/quote] [e digicons]o_O[/e]
Sounds like a good idea. For that reason, I can't see politicians agreeing to it! I don't think the penalties should be quite so severe as implied in the link (fine and up to 10 years job ban - 10 years sounds a bit extreme for a lie IMO, assuming it's one that falls outside of the criminal system). Ultimately the electorate should be allowed to decide if a lie is severe enough for someone to be banned or not - hence remoev the ban [as a politician], and just have a fine coupl
JoeUser Forums
[quote] Do you think chicken farmers hold back half the eggs while waiting for prices to go down? [/quote] You want it in terms of eggs/chicken farmers? Here it is then: If the price of eggs falls, people will want more of them. If the price of eggs rises, farmers will want more chickens (to produce more eggs). If the government buys eggs off the farmers and makes them available to people for free (funded via taxes), then people will want more eggs. More eggs will need
JoeUser Forums
[quote] That is the very definition of increasing DEMAND. It does not in any way shape or form increase SUPPLY [/quote] again, [quote] Nope. Health insurance of this nature DOES increase supplies. If you offer a group of people a service for $100, fewer people are likely to take it up than if you offer it for free. So if the government provides insurance to everyone for certain healthcare problems, that means if those people suffer those problems they can claim
JoeUser Forums
[quote] Where do you get that increase in demand? People do not get sicker just because there is health insurance. [/quote] So you're seriously saying that if receiving treatment/care for something previously cost $10,000 and now costs $0, that there would be no change in the number of people wanting the treatment?!! Afterall if the government provides insurance for you that covers certain healthcare and you have need for that healthcare, you can now just claim on your government insu
[quote] Sure sounds like you were referring to me, since any reasonable person can see I posted on the 24th 26th (your comment above was on the 27th) and called you out on the 27th. Why don't you try being a man for once in your life, and admit you're full of shit or don't know what the hell you're writing about. Which is it? [/quote] Let's see: [quote] Geez! A personal attack? The man does run a business. I seriously doubt reading blogs take priority. Quite the ch
JoeUser Forums
[quote] No. I am suggesting that they will pay the market rate but the market rate will go down. And that will impact supply. [/quote] If they pay the market rate, and there's an increase in demand, that means the market rate will go up, not down. It's simple supply and demand again - an increase in demand causes prices to increase which causes supply to increase until the market is back in equilibrium. If the government tries to drive prices down to the point where su
JoeUser Forums
[quote] Health insurance does NOT increase supplies. In fact public health insurance creates a monopsony and monopsonies lower prices. And lower prices lead to less supply. [/quote] Nope. Health insurance of this nature DOES increase supplies. If you offer a group of people a service for $100, fewer people are likely to take it up than if you offer it for free. So if the government provides insurance to everyone for certain healthcare problems, that means if those people suffer those
[quote] liberalism is evil [/quote] [e digicons]:rofl:[/e]
[quote] I comprehended what you asked for. [/quote] Then you are deliberately seeking to misstate what I have said. [quote] Geez! A personal attack? The man does run a business. I seriously doubt reading blogs take priority. Quite the cheap shot I must say, dragging Brad into your argument [/quote] Another idiot who can't read (that's you I'm talking about, not Brad - I'd better make that clear given the abysmal level of reading comprehension being displayed here)
[quote] why don't we start with you aeortar. You are on a thread he himself has created (and thus is probably reading the comments of) and you are blasting him for silencing difference of opinion. And yet you weren't banned. [/quote] He hasn't posted for quite some time on this thread, so it is quite an assumption to make that he is both reading comments on it on a daily basis, and also has as poor a reading comprehension as you appear to.
[quote] Give me five names of people who got banned because of difference of opinion with Brad. [/quote] No. All I need is 1, and that's fairly easy - Little Whip had a big bust up with Brad a while ago, although I can't provide much evidence since all her posts were removed (Brad gave a post saying what he'd done and why though if you're sceptical - feel free to have a dig around for it if you want). Talt already gave another example from further back. Then you also have people who w
[quote] So you believe I will be banned? (double negative) [/quote] Plural you, not singular. As in people/generally, not you personally.
[quote] I vehemently disagree that it is easy to get banned [/quote] I vehemently disagree that you never get banned.
[quote] No, you will not. [/quote] Yes, you will. Disagree with Brad and you risk getting banned (I can vaguely recall reading him saying something about the forum rules being you don't piss him off, and obviously if you disagree with him you're more likely to piss him off). He does tend to give you the courtesy of a warning first though.
JoeUser Forums
[quote] We aren't debating universal health 'care' - we're debating universal (government) health 'insurance.' [/quote] Lets follow through how government provided insurance works then. Firstly, what kind of insurance is provided? Well the government could give really nice insurance to one person that covers every imaginable need, and realy poor insurance to someone else. That would be unlikely to go down very well with most people, hence it's most likely they'll either provide the sa
[quote] The silence is deafening. [/quote] [quote] What I do require is that if someone bothers to respond to me that they actually read what I say and respond to the point of my reply. [/quote] I didn't feel I had much to say in response to what I thought the point of your last reply was, hence my silence :p. [quote] The average "liberal" forum instead simply bans and censors anyone who displays an ounce of integrity and intelligence. When you try to te
JoeUser Forums
[quote] If it is true that two lives saved are better than one life saved, we should use tax payer money to pay for public hospitals in Africa, where people die from diseases a bit of money can easily cure. For the price of two Americans you can save at least a dozen Africans. If 2 Americans > 1 American, are not 12 Africans > 2 Americans? [/quote] No, the sad truth is that your life is worth more depending on where you are born. How else do you explain c
[quote] The fact is giving a rich guy a tax break is far less likely to improve the economy because they already have sufficient discretionary income to buy the things they want and need and usually they just put the tax cut into the bank. Now if your goal is to improve the economy then the best place to put the money is into unemployment benefits because it’s certain that money will be immediately spent and will thereby stimulate the economy to the maximum effect. [/quote] That
JoeUser Forums
[quote] It is ironic that they are both accusing republicans of having the policy of "do not get sick, if you do get sick, die quickly". Yet at the same time they are outright saying "if you are old and you are sick, you are gonna die, we are not gonna waste money prolonging your life by a few months" [/quote] There is a key difference between the two. The second approach is recognising that lives have monetary values placed on them, and looking to save 2 lives instead of 1. That is,
[quote] It always gets down to voodoo, trickle down economics. That was disproved by the *first* Bush depression of 1990-91 and reinforced by Bush 2 in 2001 and the Bush 3 depression that we're still currently in...Plus who in the world ever "decided not to be rich"? [/quote] What's voodoo about it? Secondly, it's not about choosing not to be rich, it's about balancing work and leisure. The more you work the richer you get, but the less leisure you get. It is also logical that
GalCiv2 Forums