sees_all1

For P2P that is. They're going to be very consistant, and make combat just like dungeoneering. E: trollface. But I wouldn't expect any less from them.

Not sure if you tried, but the free world was usually busier than the p2p world for GOP.

You could get rid of it before. How much does 1 runecoin cost? I didn't see any obvious way to do it as a F2Per. But it's gone now, and that's all that matters to me.

I liked this update. Because now "The Real Sees_All1" is now just "Sees_All1". I never wanted a title, and now I can get rid of it.

Going back to your definition of progressives and conservatives (@ sees), the current law forces x and doesn't allow y. From your definition, a conservative should be fighting to legalize gay marriage to give people more choice; allow them to choose between x and y. I think you should come up with a better definition/understanding, since when applied to pretty much every social issue on the table right now, your definition is actually ass backwards since the conservatives are legislating to limit freedoms, or resisting legislation that would expand freedoms. Reread it again, The difference between the two is implementation. Literally what progressives are trying to do is legislate something to change the status quo. I'll give another example of something that isn't such a hot button issue. Poverty. Both conservatives and progressives will say it sucks to be poor, and that we should do something to help the poor. The difference is implementation. A conservative will volunteer their time/talent/treasure to help the poor, a progressive will pass legislation that gets government to help the poor.

You gave an example that supported my argument. You think gay marriage is a good thing, so you want to legislate it. Lolno. I want to un-legislate it, remote the clause that says only a man and a woman can marry, make the law less restrictive. It's 100% the conservatives who are limiting the freedom of the people on this issue. "I think that it would be good for same sex couples to enjoy the legal and monetary benefits of marriage, so I'm going to push legislation that changes the definition of marriage to force others to recognize same sex marriage." It's progressive through and through. Furthermore, I might be arguing against you, but if nothing changes gays still can't be married. You'd do yourself a world of good if you read and understood other people's opposing viewpoints, not just what people believe but why they believe it.

Small XP lamp, because I can actually use it. I think I've got a few members items that were in the red category, but I've always tossed them.

That's another thing about Romney that troubles me, but if I compare the two records the pick is easy.

Didn't watch the video clip, but the difference between true conservatism is true progressivism is this: A conservative realizes that x is good for them and y is bad for them. They then resolve to do more of x and less of y. A progressive realizes the same thing, and then petitions to get a law passed that forces people to do x and penalizes people from doing y. I'd rather have people making their own decisions than government making it for them. Well the real point of that post was that Mitt Romney had supported the idea of the individual mandate and thus (in your words) supported making your decisions for you. I don't see how it's fair to criticize Obama on changing his mind on the mandate when Romney changed his mind just as much. Mitt Romney didn't get my vote in the primary for that very reason, so you have a very good argument.

You gave an example that supported my argument. You think gay marriage is a good thing, so you want to legislate it. As far as abortion goes, the fundamental conservative argument is protecting the rights of an entire class of human beings that are marginalized, not forcing women into some sort of reproductive slavery.

Didn't watch the video clip, but the difference between true conservatism is true progressivism is this: A conservative realizes that x is good for them and y is bad for them. They then resolve to do more of x and less of y. A progressive realizes the same thing, and then petitions to get a law passed that forces people to do x and penalizes people from doing y. I'd rather have people making their own decisions than government making it for them.

SECOND PLACE MEANS YOU'RE THE FIRST LOSER. I have two. In my opinion, I only earned one of them.

http://senateconserv...repealobamacare I like how the Democrats and Obama passing healthcare, something they ran on and advertised as one of their main priorities, is considered "forcing an unpopular law on the people". When polled as what it is, and not Obamacare, the ACA is supported by the majority of people. I'll agree with you that they ran on that as their platform in 2008, but that's about as far as I'll go. Obama ran against Clinton in the primaries by opposing the individual mandate, but later "changed" his mind. The circumstances of Obamacare passing Congress was shady as well. The original bill used as a vehicle by the Senate for Obamacare had absolutely nothing to do with healthcare. They used that bill passed by the house to replace it with Obamacare, (removing all the original text and circumventing article 1 section 7 of the Constitution), then they used reconciliation (as the two versions were different) to escape a filibuster and pass it strictly as a budget item, which allowed another simple majority vote in the house. Had Obamacare originated in the House, the Senate would have never been able to vote on it. Also, remember the special election of Scott Brown, who campaigned solely to block Obamacare in Massachusetts? Or remember the 2010 elections? It was basically an ass-whooping. Mitt Romney needs to do 3 things to win. Play clips of Obama's broken campaign promises from 2008, Remind people that Obamacare is still law, and talk about how bad the economy is.

What's the high score for a currently active user?

"Well that's funny" Only one I remembered being annoying was prick.

I'm going to do something completely different by doing nothing. The next post will only post a rule.

Rate, not number. :wall: It's like 12 per 100,000 versus 4 per 100,000. E: Also, what counts as health care? Does it include elective surgeries like breast implants or botox treatments? Do you include things like acne medicine or spa treatments? These are things people with disposable income will buy where other countries can't afford x-ray machines. Luckily my mother is a retired NHS nurse, so I posed to her your questions: Acne treatments, yes, but only for chronic cases that can lead to complications. Spa treatments, no. Breast implants, only for the purpose of restructuring after a mastectomy (usually performed as a treatment for breast cancer). Botox, yes, but not for cosmetic purposes, there are some medical conditions that can be treated with the compound. Basically, if you want bigger breasts, you'll still need to go private in the UK. I'm figuring that all gets thrown into the "Americans spend more than 17% of their GDP on healthcare while X country only spends Y%, so X country is more efficient" well, what else were they going to spend it on? Trophy wives gotta stay pretty.

Rate, not number. :wall: It's like 12 per 100,000 versus 4 per 100,000. E: Also, what counts as health care? Does it include elective surgeries like breast implants or botox treatments? Do you include things like acne medicine or spa treatments? These are things people with disposable income will buy where other countries can't afford x-ray machines.

Life expectancy isn't a good way of comparing health care systems. There's a bunch of confounding factors that are irrelevant when comparing health care systems, for instance the U.S. yearly fatality rate for motor vehicles is more than 3 times that than the U.K. Or the criteria behind a "live birth" in the U.S. is much looser than that of any other country. A baby can be born 6 weeks early, blue in the face and barely be above room temperature and the U.S. would still call it a live birth, where other countries wouldn't even consider any baby born 2 weeks premature or earlier. The average 5 year survival rate of cancer in the U.S. is #1 compared to other countries. The average life expectancy when factoring out fatal accidents for the U.S. is #1 compared to other countries. http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/11/23/the-myth-of-americans-poor-life-expectancy/

I use the word tax because that's the only way the individual mandate is legal. The other arguments (namely the commerce clause) were specifically found unconstitutional. Be my guest, argue that it isn't a tax. Maybe you'll do us all a favor and get it thrown out. Anyhow, you can't call the US health care system the 34th best in the world for quality when there are destination hospitals here that others forgo their own "free" systems so they can get a visa, fly here, and be able to pay for better treatment.

Our care sucks so bad that wealthy foreigners in socialized healthcare nations come over here for treatment.

Obamacare is designed to socialize healthcare. They're playing the long game. It won't do it immediately, just inevitably (otherwise there would have been too much push-back from the American people). It'll make it "cheaper" for individuals and companies to rely on the government while hiding the true cost of care, and it will bankrupt insurance companies and other intermediaries. There's about twenty different things Obama could have put in Obamacare that would've contained costs better, but somehow he missed it in its 2700 pages.

That's an absurd argument to make. Unless you actually believe it, then it's horrifying.

The health insurance tax is unavoidable. By being alive and American, you must buy health insurance or pay a tax. Auto insurance is avoidable. By not having a car or carrying a license, you don't have to have auto insurance.

TNPW tell a story in 3 sentences.