Flawed_System

"All that said, I’m happy this the turn of events prompted Clock Tower for the SNES."

?

@ElleJ said:

@Bell_End: nope...people wont even come near me when I stare. If they wanted to bash my head in I have weapons to make a hasty get away...Do you want to?

Such as?

@ThePickle said:

'Bama's been dumping tons into internet ads. I don't think GameSpot is taking a side or anything. You could refresh that page and easily see a page for dick pills (or Dick Pills, my new CBS sitcom). Just like on GB, CBSi's ad department decides all that stuff, and they're not going to turn down a dumptruck full of money from the Commander in Chief.

President is not commander in chief until called upon by Congress.

@robot4me said:

your collection is small.

2 vectrex games & console

35 collecovision games & 3 consoles

40 sega master system games & console

200 nes

200 sega genesis / megadrive games & us & japanese console + 32x +cd

150 snes / super famicom & us & japanese console

45 n64 games & 7 n64's

80 saturn games & us & japanese console

8 phillips cdi games & console

210 ps1 us slim & fat & japanese slim & fat consoles

12 dreamcast games & console

600 ps2 games & 7 fats & 3 slims consoles

90 gamecube games & every color console + panasonic Q gamecube

5 xbox games & mountain dew xbox & limited edition halo xbox

150 wii games & white wii

200 xbox 360 games & 360 s console

900 steam games

mario kart gp 2 arcade cabinet 2 seat model

donkey kong jr arcade cabinet

mk 2 arcade cabinet

I only have 2 hobbies I put money into. video games and hunting so I have a very focused games collection.

This is completely unrelated, but your "Liberals Kill Liberty Dead" picture is great.

@LastNinja said:

On related note, Rockstar should make a new Manhunt. Was 2 any good?

I wish they would make a new Manhunt as well.

It would have benefited from more in door sequences. I didn't enjoy the Brazilian missions as much.

I answered all of them except for the Ohloan.

@Animasta said:

@Flawed_System said:

Obama lost. Simple as that.

did you just watch the first debate again?

well whatever have your dumb opinion I've given up on arguing with you people

That is exactly how I feel.

Obama lost. Simple as that.

@Turambar said:

@Flawed_System said:

@Turambar said:

No. That wasn't clear at all unless you show evidence that Romeny was speaking of specifically soldiers at home, not simple those that don't pay income tax.

Seeing as he was addressing civilians at home...it's not a huge stretch to infer that he wasn't counting troops deployed overseas.

It's actually a giant stretch. Don't be daft. He made no clauses when he stated in clear terms who fell into the 47%: those that do not pay income tax. He wasn't speaking to students, those that made 20 thousand or less a year, or those who were on fixed Social Security income, but you certainly aren't making the argument they don't fall into the group. Whats the logic behind pretending overseas soldiers did?

@Flawed_System said:

@Turambar said:

@Flawed_System said:

1). The quote from Biden for #1 is "But we weren’t told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security there." The section in bold is what actually occurred. Clearly Biden was mistaken.

2). Can you please explain to me how Embassy security can be considered non-discretionary security spending?

Regardless, Ryan never proposed cutting Embassy security spending. Thus, the statement is still false.

3). Can you cite where you got this information from please (regarding religious exemption, I've read that there's an incredibly narrow exemption currently)? The CHA recently pulled support for Obamacare due to the contraception plan.

4). Isn't that what I posted? "Biden actually voted in favor of both wars."

5). What you're saying is that the money spent on Obamacare would cost HMO's more money...and if they spend it on Medicare instead of Obamacare how would that negatively impact patients? Please elaborate.

1. Hence why I said his statement was false.

2. Because it is? It is anything in the Federal budget that isn't Defense and National Security, Social Security, and health care. Why it isn't under defense, I have no idea. Ryan's lack of specifications could mean that he will cut none of embassy security, or he will cut all of it. We don't know, so assuming it will be spread out evenly over everything falling into non-discretionary spending is reasonable. You're being silly.

3. Politico

4. Yes, I'm agreeing with you.

5. The money being taken form Medicare comes largely from subsidies to Medicare Advantage, a subset of programs ran by private insurers that started under the Bush administration. It's goal was to have insurers under Medicare Advantage compete with each other to have lower prices, but how successful that was is questionable.

2). I don't believe it's reasonable to assume he'll cut everything when that clearly isn't his intent. The Romney-Ryan budget plan is easily accessed online (in pdf form) and it makes no mention of Embassy cuts or across the board cuts. Thus, Biden's assertion that he will cut everything is unreasonable and unfounded.

3). I've looked at that article and it states that only certain institutions are exempt, it doesn't specify which institutions, and private employers are not exempt. This still creates a conundrum of sorts, as you an see, because these private employers are still required to provide contraceptives regardless of their religious beliefs and there are still religious institutions that are required to as well.

5). Getting back to the original statement...Biden's assertion that they saved money was unfounded. Regardless of Romney/Ryan's plan to put the money into medicare and speculations on how much this would cost patients. Do you agree?

2. If a general lack of information (because the budget plan does not in fact mention any specifics of what it will cut under the non-discretionary spending aside from that it will be cutting non-discretionary spending) is Romeny/Ryan's defense, there's not really any argument the opposing side can give because there is nothing to argue against.

3. Yes, I already mentioned that private employers are not excluded in my original response.

5. Here's the logic in plain terms: HMOs saving money through subsidies but not passing on the savings to patients? Fuck that. Patients saving money directly through subsidies and leaving HMOs out to dry? Fuck yeah.

1). Overseas soldiers weren't among the constituents he was addressing...He was clearly referring to people at home. Regardless, he apologized for the remark and said it was "not elegantly stated." Kind of like Biden's remark about "putting yall back in chains."

2). Did you look at the plan? No specific cuts to non-discretionary security was recommended. If there were no specific cuts, how can you assume they will cut everything? Biden specifically cited cuts to Embassy security as well...

"Number one, the — this lecture on embassy security — the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for, number one. So much for the embassy security piece."

3). So we can agree that Biden's remark on this subject was false, correct? Given the fact that private employers and some religious organizations are still required to provides contraceptives.

5). I understood your statement...and it's irrelevant to my original remark that $700 billion was not saved.