The Organisation Forums

@Schmidt 1

Exactly, taxes of all classes pay for health care in most nations that are any good.(The others tend to be oppressed as it is or starving etc.) The same thing would happen with HGM, all classes would be taxed, the higher ones more so much like today’s everyday practice.

Your whole anti-subsidization makes no sense and will thus be ignored from this point until you bring forth arguments and or evidence rather than unsupported statements.

@Alexius

Pensions are taxed over a very large amount of years, HGM would be the same way if the costs ended up being that high, in fact the cost would be MUCH smaller than the current cost of pensions.

@Schmidt 2

I find it funny how you failed to read Zenithans religious comment properly. He plainly stated that religion influenced media portrayal. IE, he did not in any way call you religious. It seems to be a common occurrence for you to invent attacks against you.

Also, whether your point was about cement or asphalt it makes no difference, you are simply ranting about nothing by continuing to argue that.

I would have said something, but Icmoigigan seems to have covered it all. Schmidt, I said "I believe many" - if I'm not mistaken, there's two opt-out words in there: believe, meaning it is my opinion, and many, meaning not all. I don't understand why you took that as an attack. I'm a bit tired of having to deal with the constant feeling that you feel I am attacking you, and that is rarely the case.

Oh, and I clarified the asphalt-cement thing the SENTENCE BEFORE THE SENTENCE YOU QUOTED - AND (!) THE SENTENCE AFTER. Raw materials. Not to mention that much asphalt contains cement.

And then Mike was done with this debate because there is no point in having any kind of intelligent discussion because your arrogant and fucking idiot remarks. I guess if you're not agreed with, William, it makes your opinion null and void. Something you frequently enjoy doing; putting people down who don't agree with you.

And Geoff, I didn't take it so much as an attack. I was rebutting - this is a fucking debate. That is what happens in a debate! You attack your opponents! Woah! Who would have thought that? I guess if you question an attack here it means that I'm taking it personal! Woah!

So fuck the both of you and enjoy your bullshit; obviously you prefer a one sided debate and everyone who disagrees with you is either a) an idiot b) their opinion is void or baseless c) unintelligent.

1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

Discussion. Not attack-fest. A debate is not for flaming; debates are more formal. I don't remember inferring that you are an idiot, or unintelligent, or that your opinion is void. Why would I even be debating if I didn't believe that? I can't speak for anyone else, though. Attack your opponent's points, not their characters.

Kindly do not use so much sarcasm in future. I find it extremely annoying when I am trying to speak to someone. Extremely. That's ignoring the insane amount of generalizations you make about our "mindsets"... that we are all against you, that we don't think you ever have anything valuable to say... Not to mention that you are putting down people much like you accuse Icmoigigan of.

Also, personally. Not personal. Personally.

Oh, enjoy your "cool exit". You seem to like that kind of thing. From my perspective, it seems like you are the one who refuses to accept my opinion. In addition to that, you are attacking both it and me, and I don't understand why. Alexius doesn't seem to have that problem.

Oh look, a baseless flame, such an intelligent conversation you have created.


Oh look, a baseless accusation, quite the arrogant fuck are you not?


And more baseless flames and baseless accusations.

Notice how you always degenerate in to calling everybody else BS in a hail of flames while saying that they can never have a discussion, and obviously just disagree with you and dismiss everything you say.

I have just about had it with your bullshit Schmidt, in this entire “conversation” all I have done is rebuked your arguments and suggest that you should provide evidence rather than randomly dismissing concepts like the close minded fuck that you are.

You really need to get a life. Perhaps a life in which you are not an idiot who has mass conspiracy theories that everyone is always plotting against him or that everyone else is BS. Occams Razor states that the simplest solution is most often the correct solution. Try to contemplate that the simplest solution is that rather than everyone else being BS it is infinitely more likely that you in fact are the BS one.

To sum up my last 2-3 paragraphs you can go fuck yourself you fucking ignorant dumbass. (Preferably while you are seeking out a new life to replace the one that is failing you so desperately)

By the way, William, you're not making any sense. Quote me where I say and/or think that the world is against me. You tell me that I think that when I don't think that. You're not an empath, nor do you know what you're talking about.

See, whenever anyone has a problem with your attitude in debates or out of debates you always come up with the same response. You always say that that person is, as I already said: a) an idiot b) their opinion is void or baseless c) unintelligent. And sometimes you start to yell and make a scene similar to what Justin used to do just 10 times louder.

And if that's "all that you were doing", maybe you should reconsider how you deliver the question to avoid this crap.

When you tell someone that they're argument is going to be ignored because you don't like it or that they are ranting on about absolutely nothing, like you always do when someone disagrees with you, the person tends to get a little pissed off. Use your head and stop calling me closed minded because I don't agree with you. You are the one that is closed minded, my friend. What is it that you always say when you hear something new that you don't agree with?

"No. Just no." Does that ring a bell? It should. Or how about this? "Whatever, you fucking idiot." or even just "Whatever, Mike. You're just an idiot." Those are all common things you say. So generally, if you're not in accord with you you're obviously "a closed minded arrogant fuck" as you like to say. Tell me how my mind is closed, or shall we dig up more of your hypocritical quotes that you think are actual burns:



Yeah, exactly.

And a note on how "I always 'degenerate'" to flames when in disagreement, that is not true. I resort to flames when I get sick of people bashing me because I don't agree. When your arrogance blinds you to the point that you think you have the right to tell me that what I say will be ignored and my subsidisation idea makes no sense when it makes perfect sense and supported with arguments that you feel are unworthy, that is your own damn problem. The same thing happened when you were in your debate at school when you came up with the wise crack about how are voluntary samples are not biased and you seeked proof when in fact you were taught that by Mrs. George. We all were.

So maybe you should deal with you own problems before you go out pointing everyone else's, because it's getting very old and very tiring, your hypocrite.

I assume that I am not going to get an explanation as to why I was included in this blanketing, generalizing statement? You seemed to have a rant against Icmoigigan prepared. I don't see any justification directed at me, and I would appreciate some after a statement such as that.

That was because of you saying something about a "cool exit". But it really had nothing to do with you at all.

That was actually before my "cool exit" comment.

Then I have no idea.

Just another day on the forums...

This has been settled out of forum and in the aim of peace I will not post my long reply, carry on people.