Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Megumi

Was Obama a good president?

Recommended Posts

ten-a-penny

I said it once, I'll say it again. My tax dollars are for roads and the military, I DO NOT owe anything to anyone else.

Oh, I see, human lives means LESS than the military.

 

 

Get the f*ck outta here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ULPaperContact

 

 

Oh, I see, human lives means LESS than the military. Aren't the military humans too?

 

 

Get the f*ck outta here. You're too kind!

 

The military keeps 'human lives' safe and secure, buddy. We learned that when we joined the Navy. Obamacare was awful and screwed over many of my navy buddies, he wanted to take people's modern sporting rifles, and I'm very happy he's out of office. At least Trump is doing good, unlike Mr. Obama. Go ahead, call me all the names in the book. At 57, I've learned you can't fix stupid people like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

 

 

 

Oh, I see, human lives means LESS than the military. Aren't the military humans too?

 

 

Get the f*ck outta here. You're too kind!

 

The military keeps 'human lives' safe and secure, buddy. We learned that when we joined the Navy. Obamacare was awful and screwed over many of my navy buddies, he wanted to take people's modern sporting rifles, and I'm very happy he's out of office. At least Trump is doing good, unlike Mr. Obama. Go ahead, call me all the names in the book. At 57, I've learned you can't fix stupid people like you.Keep drinking the koolaid, kid. Pretty soon it won't matter anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ULPaperContact

 

 

 

 

Keep drinking the koolaid, kid. Pretty soon it won't matter anymore.

 

That's cute. You going to post anything of value?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crokey

... Obamacare was awful...

 

Obamacare was awful, due to the amount of concessions that had to be made from the original plan in order to keep the, at the time, majority Republican House and Senate happy. Or to put it another way, the Republicans who wanted these changes saw Obamacare as too socialist, and because most of them have been on Capitol Hill since the Cold War due to having no limits on term times and have got their heads stuck way too much in the past, they see Socialism as being akin to Communism.

 

Also something something something lobbyists being bad for business and fair governance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlienTwo

I ask the same thing of you. It's useless to argue facts wirh you people as you don't even believe in them.

 

But please, go on to tell us how the US military.... What... *saves* human life? Last I checked, our military only enforces our corporate interests abroad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ten-a-penny

The military keeps 'human lives' safe and secure, buddy.

Yeah, the Military keep the OUTSIDE THREAT at bay. I knew that when I was 5 (blame the horde of war games I played as a child, lol). But they don't check the people INSIDE, do they? It isn't about security, mister. Its about Health.

 

Obamacare was awful and screwed over many of my navy buddies,

How so? By helping people who actually NEED help? Sir, the Military already have the budget it needs. Just FYI, the US is still the strongest military in the world. You don't need anything more than this.

 

he wanted to take people's modern sporting rifles,

How DARE he take the very things that cause all the mass shootings in the US!!!!!1one. Didn't knew that the only firepower that exist in the world is MILITARY-grade weaponry. Do correct me if I'm wrong, but not allowing people to have MILITARY-grade weaponry isn't wrong AT ALL. Yeah, sure, allow people to have small firearms to defend themselves when a f*cker comes in, but allowing small firearms (something that I approve) =/= taking away MILITARY-grade weaponry. Restricting what type of weaponry a CIVILIAN should have =/= bad guy. Its called common sense. Jesus.

 

 

At least Trump is doing good

Yeah, like banning innocents from coming to US soil LEGALLY, f*cking over the poor, insulting anyone who isn't a Straight White male,.... yay Drumpf!

 

At 57, I've learned you can't fix stupid people like you.

We also learned that dealing with racist, Homophobic, sexist freaks like you is useless. We also learned that your kind only cater to yourselves and give the middle finger to everyone else. yay Republic*nts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ULPaperContact

@AlienTwo

Sure, I'll take that bait.

 

Imagine, if you will, the US Military ceasing to exist. What's going to happen what nutjobs like that North Korean f*cknut start getting trigger happy? You know he wants to.

 

Not exactly sure what this has to do with Obama, though.

 

@ten-a-penny

 

Jesus christ, where to start.

 

First, that's the entire f*cking point of the military. To keep outside threats away.

 

Nobody I know was helped by Obamacare. In fact, everyone I know was screwed over by it.

 

You dumbass. Do you really think an AR-15 is the same as a military style fully automatic assault rifle? You're clearly ignorant on the subject here. Not sure about how restricted your country is on guns, but obviously enough to where you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Now you're playing the RACIST11!1!!1!! card. Not taking that bait, pal.

 

Oh, there's the homophobic racist sexist card, depsite how I've said nothing whatsoever about gays, blacks (or other races), or women.

 

Good job.

Edited by ULPaperContact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ten-a-penny

First, that's the entire f*cking point of the military. To keep outside threats away.

You missed the point. Yay!

 

 

Nobody I know was helped by Obamacare. In fact, everyone I know was screwed over by it.

Nobody YOU know was helped by Obamacare, but there are millions of people you DON'T know is helped by it. If only you have the courage to get out of your tiny "me, myself & I" bubble, you'll see the truth.

 

 

You dumbass. Do you really think an AR-15 is the same as a military style fully automatic assault rifle? You're clearly ignorant on the subject here. Not sure about how restricted your country is on guns, but obviously enough to where you don't know what you're talking about.

Ah, Libya's gun restriction is SO HIGH people sell guns on the f*cking street. If you were smart enough you'd realize that Libya's going through a civil war which means armory would be everywhere. Ever seen an AAG sitting commonly on the streets? I did.

 

 

Now you're playing the RACIST11!1!!1!! card. Not taking that bait, pal.

Oh, there's the homophobic racist sexist card, depsite how I've said nothing whatsoever about gays, blacks (or other races), or women.

52f41566bcd250d5e460565d4ff1b538_the-opt

 

Obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

reintroduce an expired ban on military-style assault weapons

 

introduce background checks on all gun sales

 

pass a ban on possession and sale of armor-piercing bullets.

Now I'm not an advocate of magazine size restrictions, they're frankly silly and there's no evidence they actually have any impact on shooting incidents, even mass shootings. But can you explain to me why banning armour piercing ammunition, assault pattern rifles or making all firearm purchasers undergo background checks are bad things?

 

As for foreign policy, look at relations with Russia

Public spokespersons of the Russian government have said relations are worse under Trump, largely as a result of unilateral US military action in:

 

Syria.

So what do you want the US to do? Be involved militarily, or not be involved militarily? Because Trump said he'd do the latter but has actually done the former. Which policy do you support, the theoretical or practical one.

 

At least with Trump Russia is, for the most part, on side.

Ha. If anything, the US' attitude to Russia has been even more hawkish since Trump took power.

 

My tax dollars are for roads

Why should roads be publicly owned, but healthcare not be? They're both civil goods, just one is for everyone and one is for people with cars.

 

he wanted to take people's modern sporting rifles

I've always hated this stupid euphemism for assault-pattern rifles. They're not really sporting weapons.

 

At least Trump is doing good

Like what? So far he's entirely failed to enact the vast majority of his flagship policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ULPaperContact

 

 

Now I'm not an advocate of magazine size restrictions, they're frankly silly and there's no evidence they actually have any impact on shooting incidents, even mass shootings. But can you explain to me why banning armour piercing ammunition, assault pattern rifles or making all firearm purchasers undergo background checks are bad things? First of all, civilians aren't allowed to have assault weapons. Assault weapons are fully automatic rifles. Second, gun buyers already have to undergo background checks. That's common knowledge. And quite frankly, The government shouldn't be able to ban AP ammo, because then they'll go to 'cop killer' hollow points. Then, all-lead ammo. Then, incindiary. You give them an inch, they take a mile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

First of all, civilians aren't allowed to have assault weapons. Assault weapons are fully automatic rifles.

Hence the term "assault-pattern", which is an accurate representation- they're semi-automatic rifles modelled on (patterned after) assault rifles. I don't particularly care either way about "assault weapon" bans, but I've yet to see a convincing argument for retaining them. Almost everywhere else in the world criminalised them decades ago.

 

Second, gun buyers already have to undergo background checks.

Some gun buyers do. If you buy privately, or at shows, or through some broker and straw purchase services, you don't. Why not close these loopholes and have a system that treats all purchasers with the same degree of care?

 

The government shouldn't be able to ban AP ammo, because then they'll go to 'cop killer' hollow points.

Firstly, manufacture, sale and import of armour piercing ammunition is already illegal and has been for years. Secondly, who are "they"? I don't think the government are going to ban expanding ammunition given that it's necessary for humane varmint control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ULPaperContact

 

First of all, civilians aren't allowed to have assault weapons. Assault weapons are fully automatic rifles.

Hence the term "assault-pattern", which is an accurate representation- they're semi-automatic rifles modelled on (patterned after) assault rifles. I don't particularly care either way about "assault weapon" bans, but I've yet to see a convincing argument for retaining them. Almost everywhere else in the world criminalised them decades ago. Point being? Most countries are very different from the US. Now, as for a reason for keeping them, read the second amendment. Good luck keeping the security of a free state with a bolt-action single shot. This isn't Australia.

 

Second, gun buyers already have to undergo background checks.

Some gun buyers do. If you buy privately, or at shows, or through some broker and straw purchase services, you don't. Why not close these loopholes and have a system that treats all purchasers with the same degree of care? Because maybe the government doesn't need to know who owns what gun, all the time? Keep in mind most criminals buy guns illegally or steal them.

 

 

I don't think the government are going to ban expanding ammunition given that it's necessary for humane varmint control. I seem to recall quite a few people trying to get it banned. Just wait for a nutjob like that to become a legislator.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Point being? Most countries are very different from the US. Now, as for a reason for keeping them, read the second amendment.

The second amendment only talks about a "right to bear arms", it doesn't dictate the form those arms may take. Do you also support the revocation of both National Firearms Acts, the civilian ownership of fully automatic rifles, grenade launchers and active main battle tanks? If not, then why is an arbitrary line in the sand drawn at any of them acceptable but AR-15s unacceptable?

 

Because maybe the government doesn't need to know who owns what gun, all the time?

This a complete non sequitur. Registration and background checks are two entirely distinct things. Anyway, why shouldn't the government keep a database of licensed firearm ownership? They do with vehicle owners.

 

Keep in mind most criminals buy guns illegally or steal them.

By "buy illegally" I assume you're referring to grey market and private purchase firearms, which make up a huge proportion of firearms used in crime. That's exactly what policies around expanding background checks are designed to counteract.

 

I seem to recall quite a few people trying to get it banned.

Citation please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockstar Vienna

At 57, I've learned you can't fix stupid people like you.

You're 57 but still too stupid to understand basic health care/insurance and why you should also pay for other people. But at least you're not alone! There are many many ignorant and selfish people like you in your country. Many Americans don't even understand the basic health terms. So no surprise that they don't understand Obamacare either.

 

"My tax dollars are for roads and the military" Yeah I get it... You're a real murican patriot. But the military won't save your ass if you have a serious disease and no decent/affordable health care. Health care also provided with the money of other fellow citizens! And btw... The large majority of your precious tax dollars for the military is being put to "good" use abroad and not for you and the people in your own country!

Edited by Rockstar Vienna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ten-a-penny

A- Most countries are very different from the US.

B- Now, as for a reason for keeping them, read the second amendment.

C-Good luck keeping the security of a free state with a bolt-action single shot. This isn't Australia.

A- Yes. At lest most of the countries I know allow universal Healthcare and disallow gun ownership (while I can't speak for the rest of the world about gun ownership, I can speak about Morocco: You CAN own a gun, but the hassle is so fcking ridiculous you may as well say "f*ck it").

B- The Second Amendment says "rights to own arms". Firearms like pistols = arms. High-grade sh*t like assault rifles = arms. Banning high-level sh*t like assault rifles =/= banning ALL sorts of arms. Common sense, yo.

 

Because maybe the government doesn't need to know who owns what gun, all the time?

Fckin' seriously now? "We MUST know who owns what car, bike whatnot but NOT gunz!" How do your logic function, dude?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ULPaperContact

 

A- Most countries are very different from the US.

B- Now, as for a reason for keeping them, read the second amendment.

C-Good luck keeping the security of a free state with a bolt-action single shot. This isn't Australia.

A- Yes. At lest most of the countries I know allow universal Healthcare and disallow gun ownership (while I can't speak for the rest of the world about gun ownership, I can speak about Morocco: You CAN own a gun, but the hassle is so fcking ridiculous you may as well say "f*ck it").

B- The Second Amendment says "rights to own arms". Firearms like pistols = arms. High-grade sh*t like assault rifles = arms. Banning high-level sh*t like assault rifles =/= banning ALL sorts of arms. Common sense, yo. Good luck fighting a tyrannical government or foreign invader with a handgun, yo.

 

Because maybe the government doesn't need to know who owns what gun, all the time?

Fckin' seriously now? "We MUST know who owns what car, bike whatnot but NOT gunz!" How do your logic function, dude? I have the same position on cars and most other things. Got to love it when people assume!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Good luck fighting a tyrannical government or foreign invader with a handgun

This kind of logic is simply absurd. You're not going to have much luck fighting a tyrannical government (or more accurately the agents thereof) with semi-automatic AR-15 clones either. They have heavy artillery, armoured vehicles and helicopter gunships. Just look at pretty much every civil conflict in history where large portions of the military haven't deserted.

 

This isn't 1789, even with AR-15s the lack of parity in armaments between the government and citizentry is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ULPaperContact

 

Good luck fighting a tyrannical government or foreign invader with a handgun

This kind of logic is simply absurd. You're not going to have much luck fighting a tyrannical government (or more accurately the agents thereof) with semi-automatic AR-15 clones either. They have heavy artillery, armoured vehicles and helicopter gunships. Just look at pretty much every civil conflict in history where large portions of the military haven't deserted. I'll rephrase. You'll take more of the bastards out with you.

 

This isn't 1789, even with AR-15s the lack of parity in armaments between the government and citizentry is ridiculous.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

 

Why should roads be publicly owned, but healthcare not be? They're both civil goods

 

Healthcare is a service. It's a privilege, not a right. No one has the right to the service of another person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I'll rephrase. You'll take more of the bastards out with you.

So the "defending against government tyranny" spiel isn't actually valid? Glad we got that cleared up.

 

Healthcare is a service. It's a privilege, not a right. No one has the right to the service of another person.

Not entirely sure what your point is here? Don't recall ever claiming that healthcare was a right, though that doesn't mean I don't think it should be. I mean it's not like we're forcing people to provide medical care for others, that's a voluntary decision they make through career choice.

 

Anyway, aren't many "rights", including constitutional ones, dependent on the service of another person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii
I mean it's not like we're forcing people to provide medical care for others, that's a voluntary decision they make through career choice.

 

Anyway, aren't many "rights", including constitutional ones, dependent on the service of another person?

 

 

 

EMTALA makes your first statement incorrect.

 

As for your second, why don't you go ahead and clarify what you're specifically referencing to save me some time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ten-a-penny

Good luck fighting a tyrannical government or foreign invader with a handgun, yo.

bf031a71c79661679b805f52811adf92.jpg

 

Apparently taking away mid/high-level artillery (i.e assault rifles) from CITIZENS = taking away weapons from the MILITARY.

 

 

 

Do you even read the sh*t you type? :facedesk:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

EMTALA makes your first statement incorrect.

I would argue that acceptance of EMTALA is a prerequisite for relevant careers, much in the way that those in active combat roles in the armed forces accept the fact they can be operationally deployed.

 

As for your second, why don't you go ahead and clarify what you're specifically referencing to save me some time?

The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Sixteenth amendments, or at least their federal legal interpretations, all implicitly or explicitly demand particular behaviours or actions from relevant persons. There are also some slightly odd fundamental rights granted by the judiciary which aren't constitutionally enshrined and which effectively demand a service be performed for citizens by other members of the citizenry, such as protection from piracy on the high seas. Then there are the various clauses of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory. Such as the protection of personal property from arbitrary deprivation of this property (Article 17). And equality of access to public services (Article 21).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

 

I would argue that acceptance of EMTALA is a prerequisite for relevant careers, much in the way that those in active combat roles in the armed forces accept the fact they can be operationally deployed.

 

Your argument would be wrong as the two are not comparable. EMTALA is forced labor without compensation... sound familiar?

 

 

The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Sixteenth amendments, or at least their federal legal interpretations, all implicitly or explicitly demand particular behaviours or actions from relevant persons. There are also some slightly odd fundamental rights granted by the judiciary which aren't constitutionally enshrined and which effectively demand a service be performed for citizens by other members of the citizenry, such as protection from piracy on the high seas. Then there are the various clauses of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory. Such as the protection of personal property from arbitrary deprivation of this property (Article 17). And equality of access to public services (Article 21).

 

This isn't supporting your argument that individuals are entitled to a service.

Edited by Chiari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

At 57...

 

 

holy sh/t you're f/cking 60 years old and you're arguing (with shameless ignorance) about the Affordable Care Act on a gaming forum?

 

wow.

well at least that explains a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Your argument would be wrong as the two are not comparable.

Why not?

 

EMTALA is forced labor without compensation

Are you a salaried member of staff for a medical institution? If so, you're compensated as an individual. My understanding was that it is the provider organisation that goes uncompensated, but given healthcare provider organisations aren't people I don't really care. Don't want to be burdened by EMTALA? Work for a medical institution that doesn't accept Medicare payments from the Federal government.

 

This isn't supporting your argument that individuals are entitled to a service.

Aren't law enforcement, state security apperatus and the military providing services to the citizenry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii
Why not?

 

Because EMTALA is 30 years old and war is not? Surely you realize that there are currently physicians in EM who went in to practice prior to this law? This is why I don't like debating healthcare with laypersons; every ED operates at a net loss, hence the rise of private emergency departments

Are you a salaried member of staff for a medical institution? If so, you're compensated as an individual. My understanding was that it is the provider organisation that goes uncompensated, but given healthcare provider organisations aren't people I don't really care. Don't want to be burdened by EMTALA? Work for a medical institution that doesn't accept Medicare payments from the Federal governmen

 

All residents and attendings in academic medicine are salaried but you're still not grasping the point. What do you think happens when an institution goes uncompensated? CHI (which is charitable) is currently laying off staff left and right.... guess why.

Aren't law enforcement, state security apperatus and the military providing services to the citizenry?

 

I'm the wrong person you should be asking this question to since I'm against it. I would love to have privatized law enforcement.

Edited by Chiari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro

I would love to have privatized law enforcement.

So you would like civil war, lawlessness, and right according to force? I don't really think you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Surely you realize that there are currently physicians in EM who went in to practice prior to this law?

And as employees of healthcare organisations, they're being renumerated to perform certain duties. They're fulfilling a set of contractual obligations made between them and their employer. The government isn't forcing them to treat unpaying emergency patients, their employer is to meet their own legal obligations.

 

All residents and attendings in academic medicine are salaried but you're still not grasping the point.

I don't see what I'm not grasping. You're crying "government sanctioned forced labour" over a federal policy that stipulates healthcare providers must stabilise unpaying emergency patients as part of the requirements to receive Medicare funding. Sounds to me like a contractual agreement for a service provided, with financial renumeration, made between governments and medical providers.

 

What do you think happens when an institution goes uncompensated?

This still isn't selling "forced labour" to me. Which isn't to say it isn't an issue, but you seem to be conflating provider with employee when it suits you.

 

I would love to have privatized law enforcement.

Ignoring the glaring scope for abuse and the obvious violation of two, possibly three constitutional amendments, what about the military and security services?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.