What does it say about D3 on a larger level, that people feel it necessary to post videos on how to beat the game without spending tons of gold? Is that the real challenge, to do it in crappy gear? Or is the real challenge in teaching people how to play the game without the AH? Is it really just another simple 600k or less video, or maybe it's a statement about how the AH is destroying D3.
How do you or anyone on the left expect to be taken seriously when someone calls you out for being incorrect, provides evidence of said falacious statements, and you continue to obfuscate without providing one iota of data to support your own claim?
You went from "poor people vote republican"
to
"there are more rich republicans than poor"
to
"a wry comment"
Had you just admitted you were wrong from the start you could have avoided this embarassment.
Spot on, old chap. lol\
EDIT: If I've missed the "comprehension boat" three times now, please feel free to link your data supporting your claim.
Watch as I play your own game:
Rich Hollywood elites tend to vote Democratic.
Rich white guys tend to vote Democratic.
See? Nothing to it. I can't prove any of that, obviously. It's conjecture and supposition. Right up your alley.
All apologies to the OP, who obviously wanted to have a deeper discussion about violence, 'twas not my intent to sidetrack the discussion.
Your original implication was "most of the poor rural population votes republican". Through the art of obfuscation and distraction, we have arrived here at this point, where you are attempting to convince others you were really talking about exit polls, or other non-such. So:
I'd just like to add that people do vote, but they fail to vote for their interests. ie. Most of the poor rural population votes republican
The conservative movement enjoys the freedom to keep retrograde substance laws in place because it locks down at least half the population the moment they utter the word "Jesus." Therefor any attempt by a progressive to look "centrist," (and gain the coveted swing vote) must include a bow to some of these conservative values which most of the developed world knows to be a completely backward approach to governance. Chief among these issues to be adopted by "pragmatic," politicians is anti-drug policy and draconian imprisonment for minor criminals.
To put it bluntly, evangelicals are the root cause of most crime in the US.
To date, you have yet to provide any background to support this. You have, however, waxed poetic about the usefulness of Pew Research. Let us settle the original argument, and its fallacy, in this post, so that the OP and others can get back to actually dealing in (hopefully) facts:
Clearly, poorer people do not vote nor consider themselves Republican. I do realize you have attempted to minimize the impact of being drawn out here, but calling the facts " a blunt weapon" makes me no less right.
By all means, back to blaming religious folks and the poor for all the problems, don't concern yourself with factual accuracy.
The internet is a damp, dark place where lies or half-truths are allowed to fester and take root. Do your own research guys.
I second this advice. I'd just like to point out a few things you might want to consider, despite the fact I do find Pew to be a wonderful resource.
1. The data suggests that there is no marked decline in conservatism. This roughly fits my argument, although I suppose using the words republican and conservative interchangeably is in poor taste.
Ummm. First paragraph of the page I linked. You might want to, like, READ it.
"The Republican Party is in the weakest position it has been in two decades of Pew Research Center polling. Interviews with more than 7,000 respondents nationwide so far this year found just 23% identifying themselves as Republicans. This is down from 25% in 2008 and 30% as recently as 2004. In total, the GOP has lost roughly a quarter of its base over the past five years."
I suppose you think a quarter (25%) of the base is not a marked decline.
You also indicated that poor people vote "republican" (sic) in your original post, yet failed to mention the correction in your reply.
Overwhelmingly, poorer people vote Democratic, for obvious reasons.
I'd just like to add that people do vote, but they fail to vote for their interests. ie. Most of the poor rural population votes republican
The conservative movement enjoys the freedom to keep retrograde substance laws in place because it locks down at least half the population the moment they utter the word "Jesus." Therefor any attempt by a progressive to look "centrist," (and gain the coveted swing vote) must include a bow to some of these conservative values which most of the developed world knows to be a completely backward approach to governance. Chief among these issues to be adopted by "pragmatic," politicians is anti-drug policy and draconian imprisonment for minor criminals.
To put it bluntly, evangelicals are the root cause of most crime in the US.
See, this is what happens when people are allowed to just say things on the internet with no data to support it. And frankly, it's embarassing given that the first result I got when I googled "party affiliation by income level" was this:
See, I knew instinctively the poster of this falsehood was wrong, but I took a couple extra minutes to do some HOMEWORK before correcting. And therein lies the issue: people who know even less than this cat hear reads what he/she wrote, and repeats it, turning the lie into "truth".
Excerpted from the same article:
"
Party identification is strongly linked to family income levels – people in the highest income households are roughly twice-as-likely as those in the lowest income households to say they are Republicans. But over the past decade, the Republican Party has also lost adherents across all income levels while Democratic identification has remained fairly stable. A greater proportion of people in every income category are identifying as independents.
As recently as 2004 the Republican Party held an 11-point advantage (39% vs. 28% Democrat) in party identification among people in the top 20% income group (with family incomes of roughly $100,000 or more in 2009 dollars). This advantage has virtually disappeared in 2009. Today, 35% of high-income Americans say they are independents while 32% identify with the GOP and 30% with the Democratic Party.
Democrats continue to have a wide advantage among those with incomes in the lowest quintile (under $20,000 in 2009 dollars). In 2009, 42% of lower income Americans consider themselves Democrats – virtually unchanged in recent years – while just 15% are Republicans, down slightly from 19% four years ago. But in the next income level up (those earning between $20,000 and $40,000 in 2009 dollars) the GOP’s decline has been particularly sharp. In 2004, the Democrats held a 13-point edge within this income group (38% vs. 25% Republican). Today, that has opened up to a 24-point lead (40% vs. 16%) as Republican identification has dropped off by 9 points."
As we can see, Republican representation among poorer families is actually DECREASING.
The internet is a damp, dark place where lies or half-truths are allowed to fester and take root. Do your own research guys.
Maybe it's time that the US re-thought gun control as it seems that any mental patient can get their hands on a gun.
The suspected assailant had exactly one run-in with the cops: a speeding ticket. One.
But please, do exaggerate more how this guy was a mental patient and it was so obvious how crazy he was, with his erratic behavior and what-not.
Sheesh.
EDIT: And you've lost your bet on blaming it on "metal music" before the incident was 24 hours old. They've already tried tying it to the Tea Party, or right wingers. Of course we all know this guy was probably just some one-off with no political affiliation who descended into craziness in his apartment, by himself.
so because he has no other run ins with the police that means he doesn't have some sort of mental issue? Over the last 60 days the guy bought several guns and over 6000 rounds of ammunition, firstly this should have raised some kind of flag to SOMEONE but no they just let it slide.
Then lets move on to the booby trapped house he lives in, there's something not right with that, he's planning on trying to kill anyone that enters the house, that to me says he's not fully right in the head as he's planning on attempting to kill several more people.
Then there is the issue of the shooting in the first place, no-one in their right mind would just go out and shoot people anywhere, let alone a movie premiere. Also the fact that it's been claimed that he models himself on the joker, a fictional character again says to me that he has some kind of mental issue.
And yet, with all this he was still able to LEGALLY obtain 4 firearms and 6000 rounds of ammo without raising any kind of suspicion.
The point of my post was: how could anyone have known he was going to blow a fuse? You can buy guns illegally, you know. And ammo. And protective gear.
Somehow I think this has escaped your thinking, being as it doesn't align with your idealogy.
edit: spelling
the guns were bought LEGALLY. Gun control in the US is pretty lapse, it cannot be denied. In the UK you need licences for different weapons which are only issues by the police department, all guns need to be registered and the reason for owning them needs to be declared. This therefore means that a 24 year old student would not be able to really justify owning these types of weapons, about the only way he'd be able to justify it is if he went hunting but again they probably wouldn't actually just give him said licence.
I know the guns were purchased legally, I read Drudge Report too, lol.
Again, he didn't need to BUY THEM LEGALLY to get them.
People keep touting the fact that he legally bought them, as if somehow that explains his senseless murder spree. Perhaps he'd have done this 60 days ago if he didn't have to legally purchase them? We don't know. All I'm saying is gun control doesn't prevent this type of thing from happening. Though I'll meet you in the middle on one thing: citizens at large shouldn't be able to own tactical assault rifles.
And, as a disclaimer, I'll tell you I don't own a gun. I used to, but sold it after my first child was born. I simply could not see a safe way of securing the firearm where I could access it in the event of a life-threatening situation without the danger of my child finding it.
Maybe it's time that the US re-thought gun control as it seems that any mental patient can get their hands on a gun.
The suspected assailant had exactly one run-in with the cops: a speeding ticket. One.
But please, do exaggerate more how this guy was a mental patient and it was so obvious how crazy he was, with his erratic behavior and what-not.
Sheesh.
EDIT: And you've lost your bet on blaming it on "metal music" before the incident was 24 hours old. They've already tried tying it to the Tea Party, or right wingers. Of course we all know this guy was probably just some one-off with no political affiliation who descended into craziness in his apartment, by himself.
so because he has no other run ins with the police that means he doesn't have some sort of mental issue? Over the last 60 days the guy bought several guns and over 6000 rounds of ammunition, firstly this should have raised some kind of flag to SOMEONE but no they just let it slide.
Then lets move on to the booby trapped house he lives in, there's something not right with that, he's planning on trying to kill anyone that enters the house, that to me says he's not fully right in the head as he's planning on attempting to kill several more people.
Then there is the issue of the shooting in the first place, no-one in their right mind would just go out and shoot people anywhere, let alone a movie premiere. Also the fact that it's been claimed that he models himself on the joker, a fictional character again says to me that he has some kind of mental issue.
And yet, with all this he was still able to LEGALLY obtain 4 firearms and 6000 rounds of ammo without raising any kind of suspicion.
The point of my post was: how could anyone have known he was going to blow a fuse? You can buy guns illegally, you know. And ammo. And protective gear.
Somehow I think this has escaped your thinking, being as it doesn't align with your idealogy.
edit: spelling
Maybe it's time that the US re-thought gun control as it seems that any mental patient can get their hands on a gun.
The suspected assailant had exactly one run-in with the cops: a speeding ticket. One.
But please, do exaggerate more how this guy was a mental patient and it was so obvious how crazy he was, with his erratic behavior and what-not.
Sheesh.
EDIT: And you've lost your bet on blaming it on "metal music" before the incident was 24 hours old. They've already tried tying it to the Tea Party, or right wingers. Of course we all know this guy was probably just some one-off with no political affiliation who descended into craziness in his apartment, by himself.
The game as it is currently constituted is barely better than some browser-based games. There's absolutely no value in playing alone, it's like Groundhog Day over and over again.
They're putting off destroying what's left of D3 by not implementing gold selling on the RMAH at this time.
Can you imagine how ugly its going to get when that does happen?
No, I really can't because the way me and my friend play we just go and play the game. He barely focuses on the Ah at all but that's due to him just being a horrid game player in general. It won't affect my game in anyway because every item they sell will be in the game so L2Play and get the same items for free. Simple and no need for crying once you put effort in to it..Unless you are one of the piece of garbage wow casuals that don't like putting effort in to anything then I can understand your problem. Other than that it shouldn't affect your game at all.
It'd greatly help your cause if you could learn to intelligently disagree with a point. Resorting to the usual cliched name-calling that 12 year olds employ doesn't distinguish you as a higher life-form. Phrases like "l2play" and "garbage WoW casuals" don't really do much to destroy my position.
But then again, I'm right about the gold-selling on the RMAH. The fact that you and your friend ignore the AH doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
0
0
0
You went from "poor people vote republican"
to
"there are more rich republicans than poor"
to
"a wry comment"
Had you just admitted you were wrong from the start you could have avoided this embarassment.
Spot on, old chap. lol\
EDIT: If I've missed the "comprehension boat" three times now, please feel free to link your data supporting your claim.
Watch as I play your own game:
Rich Hollywood elites tend to vote Democratic.
Rich white guys tend to vote Democratic.
See? Nothing to it. I can't prove any of that, obviously. It's conjecture and supposition. Right up your alley.
0
Your original implication was "most of the poor rural population votes republican". Through the art of obfuscation and distraction, we have arrived here at this point, where you are attempting to convince others you were really talking about exit polls, or other non-such. So:
To date, you have yet to provide any background to support this. You have, however, waxed poetic about the usefulness of Pew Research. Let us settle the original argument, and its fallacy, in this post, so that the OP and others can get back to actually dealing in (hopefully) facts:
Clearly, poorer people do not vote nor consider themselves Republican. I do realize you have attempted to minimize the impact of being drawn out here, but calling the facts " a blunt weapon" makes me no less right.
By all means, back to blaming religious folks and the poor for all the problems, don't concern yourself with factual accuracy.
0
Ummm. First paragraph of the page I linked. You might want to, like, READ it.
"The Republican Party is in the weakest position it has been in two decades of Pew Research Center polling. Interviews with more than 7,000 respondents nationwide so far this year found just 23% identifying themselves as Republicans. This is down from 25% in 2008 and 30% as recently as 2004. In total, the GOP has lost roughly a quarter of its base over the past five years."
I suppose you think a quarter (25%) of the base is not a marked decline.
You also indicated that poor people vote "republican" (sic) in your original post, yet failed to mention the correction in your reply.
Overwhelmingly, poorer people vote Democratic, for obvious reasons.
0
See, this is what happens when people are allowed to just say things on the internet with no data to support it. And frankly, it's embarassing given that the first result I got when I googled "party affiliation by income level" was this:
http://www.people-press.org/2009/05/21/section-1-party-affiliation-and-composition/
See, I knew instinctively the poster of this falsehood was wrong, but I took a couple extra minutes to do some HOMEWORK before correcting. And therein lies the issue: people who know even less than this cat hear reads what he/she wrote, and repeats it, turning the lie into "truth".
Excerpted from the same article:
"
Party identification is strongly linked to family income levels – people in the highest income households are roughly twice-as-likely as those in the lowest income households to say they are Republicans. But over the past decade, the Republican Party has also lost adherents across all income levels while Democratic identification has remained fairly stable. A greater proportion of people in every income category are identifying as independents.
As recently as 2004 the Republican Party held an 11-point advantage (39% vs. 28% Democrat) in party identification among people in the top 20% income group (with family incomes of roughly $100,000 or more in 2009 dollars). This advantage has virtually disappeared in 2009. Today, 35% of high-income Americans say they are independents while 32% identify with the GOP and 30% with the Democratic Party.
Democrats continue to have a wide advantage among those with incomes in the lowest quintile (under $20,000 in 2009 dollars). In 2009, 42% of lower income Americans consider themselves Democrats – virtually unchanged in recent years – while just 15% are Republicans, down slightly from 19% four years ago. But in the next income level up (those earning between $20,000 and $40,000 in 2009 dollars) the GOP’s decline has been particularly sharp. In 2004, the Democrats held a 13-point edge within this income group (38% vs. 25% Republican). Today, that has opened up to a 24-point lead (40% vs. 16%) as Republican identification has dropped off by 9 points."
As we can see, Republican representation among poorer families is actually DECREASING.
The internet is a damp, dark place where lies or half-truths are allowed to fester and take root. Do your own research guys.
0
I know the guns were purchased legally, I read Drudge Report too, lol.
Again, he didn't need to BUY THEM LEGALLY to get them.
People keep touting the fact that he legally bought them, as if somehow that explains his senseless murder spree. Perhaps he'd have done this 60 days ago if he didn't have to legally purchase them? We don't know. All I'm saying is gun control doesn't prevent this type of thing from happening. Though I'll meet you in the middle on one thing: citizens at large shouldn't be able to own tactical assault rifles.
And, as a disclaimer, I'll tell you I don't own a gun. I used to, but sold it after my first child was born. I simply could not see a safe way of securing the firearm where I could access it in the event of a life-threatening situation without the danger of my child finding it.
0
The point of my post was: how could anyone have known he was going to blow a fuse? You can buy guns illegally, you know. And ammo. And protective gear.
Somehow I think this has escaped your thinking, being as it doesn't align with your idealogy.
edit: spelling
0
The suspected assailant had exactly one run-in with the cops: a speeding ticket. One.
But please, do exaggerate more how this guy was a mental patient and it was so obvious how crazy he was, with his erratic behavior and what-not.
Sheesh.
EDIT: And you've lost your bet on blaming it on "metal music" before the incident was 24 hours old. They've already tried tying it to the Tea Party, or right wingers. Of course we all know this guy was probably just some one-off with no political affiliation who descended into craziness in his apartment, by himself.
0
Not that it matters now, I've quit logging in.
0
It'd greatly help your cause if you could learn to intelligently disagree with a point. Resorting to the usual cliched name-calling that 12 year olds employ doesn't distinguish you as a higher life-form. Phrases like "l2play" and "garbage WoW casuals" don't really do much to destroy my position.
But then again, I'm right about the gold-selling on the RMAH. The fact that you and your friend ignore the AH doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
1
Can you imagine how ugly its going to get when that does happen?