Warrior General Games

Originally posted by JuniorV1
How about we just get out of the global security business. Which is a joke in and of itself.

Never said we should be in it, but someone has to do it.


Originally posted by JuniorV1
When you have a big stick it just makes others want a bigger stick.

So? As long as no one uses it, who cares how big it is?

Originally posted by Cuivienen
Ok, but I did though: http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum/thread/5233596?page=12#49067057

Dat reading comprehension. Me pointing out foos tiresome trolling on this subject is not me backing drugs being just like papercuts.

You have to keep reading. And start comprehending.

Originally posted by Cuivienen
You have to keep reading. And start comprehending.

Are you talking to a mirror?

I'm typing to a monitor ldo.

Originally posted by foofighter24
Marijuana does not have to be more or less like anything else, it is harmful to most users on its own merits.

papercuts are also harmful on their own merits.

meanwhile, the topic was healthcare and the subtopic was a discussion about drug addicts taking responsibility for their own health problems and then suddenly you're talking about drug legalization as if anyone besides radical libertarians are in favor of legalizing heroin.

i'm just wondering if we can deal with one tangent at a time instead of daisy-chaining them into lalaland.

also, a quick reminder about analogies --

analogies are comparisons of relations between multiple things, not a direct comparison between two things and certainly not an equivalency.

saying cannabis:heroin :: losingafinger:losingahand is an analogy.
saying cannabis:heroin :: papercut:losingahand is a better analogy

suddenly arguing that cannabis is worse than papercuts is missing several points entirely.

Originally posted by Catullus16
suddenly arguing that cannabis is worse than papercuts is missing several points entirely.

The bigger question, is he doing it as the troll, or doing to troll?

Originally posted by Cuivienen
I'm not blaming anything. I'm describing the mechanism by which this person is not benefiting from the ACA.

I know you love this piece of legislation at irrational levels, but you don't need to look for attacks to defend that aren't there Don Quixote.

The mechanism he used to not benefit from the ACA is his free will.

Oh you have no idea. I'm trying to get a law passed in my state so that I can marry the ACA!

Originally posted by Cuivienen
Um, ok? Does anything benefit every last corner of the economy? Does not doing so magically mean something does not benefit the economy?

does everything have to be a logical fallacy with you?

Originally posted by Cowpoker
Makes sense, why provide something that people can use to make an informed decision when you can provide a minute percentage of the actual numbers and twist it accordingly.

I've heard that the large majority of the 'newly' insured are actually newly insured via employer-sponsored insurance, rather than directly by the ACA. iow, job creation has more to do with the newly insured than the ACA, iirc.

Another reason that Obama and the DFL should have focused on the economy and jobs rather than spending so much time, energy, and political capital trying to pass the ACA when they did.

Originally posted by Lurchy
I've heard that the large majority of the 'newly' insured are actually newly insured via employer-sponsored insurance, rather than directly by the ACA. iow, job creation has more to do with the newly insured than the ACA, iirc.

Another reason that Obama and the DFL should have focused on the economy and jobs rather than spending so much time, energy, and political capital trying to pass the ACA when they did.

I think you copied and pasted what I kept screaming in '08 and '12 but everyone else was worried about war mongering, gay marriage, candidates tax returns, mysterious bridges, Joe the plumber and gas prices.

Originally posted by Lurchy
does everything have to be a logical fallacy with you?

No?

Originally posted by Lurchy
The mechanism he used to not benefit from the ACA is his free will.

If by free will you mean his choice to earn too much to qualify for Medicare in his State and too little to qualify for ACA subsidies nationally, then yes, I agree.

Originally posted by Cuivienen
If by free will you mean his choice to earn too much to qualify for Medicare in his State and too little to qualify for ACA subsidies nationally, then yes, I agree.

Or his will to not sign up for it.