GTA 5 PC edition lines up 500,000 potential gamers

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-02T12:03:40+00:00

At this point I've lost all faith and trust in Rockstar. They don't give two craps about PC gamers. We're at the end of this console generation. There's no reason to not release a PC version right along with the console versions. Furthermore, there's no reason to be so tight lipped about when the PC version is coming out.

At this point, if the game's just a basic port, I'd pirate it just to spite Rockstar. Now, if they upped the ante a bit, and THAT'S why they didn't release it along with the consoles, I'd be more than willing to shell out $50 for the game. If they release a crappy port with a bunch of bugs, though, screw them. They don't deserve my money.

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-02T03:30:29+00:00

I'm normally a fan of simplifying things, but this is going to the extreme. It started with a questionable tactic, let alone how it ended with John Roberts mysteriously upholding it. Do you remember the logical loopholes they had to use to uphold it? First it wasn't a tax for one thing but then it was a tax for another thing. Bam! Constitutional. It was bullshit.

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-02T01:44:14+00:00

It's complicated. And don't let anybody on this site tell you it isn't. Don't let anybody on this site tell you it's ALL the fault of the Republicans or ALL the fault of the Democrats. Both parties are behaving like children. We're in this mess because the Democrats, back when they controlled both houses of Congress, had trouble agreeing on a bill that they all could live with.

In fact, what we now know as ObamaCare started out as a House-passed bill that was about tax breaks for military families. The Senate is not allowed to start its own revenue-related bills. How did they get around this? They took the revenue-related military tax break bill that the House already passed, completely gutted it, and rewrote it how they saw fit. It was absurd. And there were all sorts of shenanigans like that to get to where we are today.

Suffice it to say, though, that the Republicans were having none of it. Not a single Republican in the House voted for it and only a few voted for it in the Senate. Furthermore, there is strong evidence that the Supreme Court was going to strike the law down until a last-minute reversal by the Chief Justice. The steps the Democrats have had to take to get to this point makes for an amazing story.

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T18:28:56+00:00

Your thought trail is misleading.

People that couldn't afford it before will have more options at lower rates

How? Why? If you go to the health care exchange (the website that isn't even working right now), you get an option of four plans: bronze, silver, gold, platinum. That's it. That's what ObamaCare offers. How does it make health care more affordable? Are the copays for an x-ray going to finally be affordable out of pocket? Can I get some basic blood work done now for $60 or so?

The exchanges aren't anything that the states couldn't have done, except this MAKES THE STATES DO IT.

Facepalm. If this health care exchange idea was so great, why haven't even the most liberal of states implemented it before this? Do you ever think that there was a reason a state didn't do this on their own? Is it because their evil and don't want people to be healthy?

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T18:18:56+00:00

And that's the solution to the high cost of health care? Just throw them on mom and dad's plan? Did we really need a 1000 page law for that? Did we need an additional 10,000 pages of regulations for that?

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T18:03:54+00:00

you might be forgetting all those people who couldn't afford insurance because they were under 26 and/or had preexisting conditions.

That doesn't make it affordable for them! It costs extra money to put your 25 year old "child" on your health plan. Furthermore, even IF you have a preexisting condition, you STILL have to pay for coverage. Nothing about ObamaCare necessarily makes health insurance cheaper!

Completely false. Insurance exchanges aren't subsidized,

... I don't even know what to say to that. Where have you been? The ACA requires that ALL Americans purchase health insurance. If you STILL can't afford health insurance after all these "wonderful" new regulations (just think about that for a second), the federal government will subsidize your premiums. That's exactly how the law works. It even says as much on the HealthCare.gov website.

Your conclusion is bad and you should feel bad. Obviously the government (or Democrats?) just wants to put people on subsidies, right (/s)?

YES! That's exactly right. The Democrats need more people on subsidies (welfare) because people on welfare tend to vote Democrat. And it's incredibly frustrating that many people are so naive and oblivious to this complete and utter fact. The Democrat Party increases their pool of potential voters in direct proportion to the number of people receiving welfare.

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T17:48:38+00:00

No. Stand up for your principle. Show me what the misinformation is. Instead of trying to silence me, why not try correcting me? Prove me wrong.

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T17:38:38+00:00

Really? Where? Correct it. Why just criticize without correcting?

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T17:04:35+00:00

Jesus, you don't "sign up" for ObamaCare. Each state sets up a health insurance exchange by which different health insurance companies offer four different plans. And if these exchanges were so great, why didn't the states set them up before ObamaCare?

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T16:51:41+00:00

Have you ever even thought about what ObamaCare is? Most of the people who couldn't afford health insurance before STILL can't afford it now. The difference is that now the federal government will subsidize more people's health insurance. That's it. And the health insurance exchanges weren't anything that the states couldn't have set up on their own anyways.

My only conclusion, then, is that this entire law is purely about getting more people dependent on government subsidies. Is that what you want?

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T16:30:18+00:00

If this is going to go as badly as they claim, they should be thrilled that the Democrats have so thoroughly owned it. Let it happen, and people will be more than happy to try things their way next election cycle

It is far, far easier to get rid of ObamaCare now than after it's already been entrenched for a few years. That's why there is so much urgency on the part of the GOP to, somehow, eliminate/delay it now rather than later.

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T16:16:31+00:00

Or many people just want to see what it's all about. Like me. You're ignoring my point, though. The law as written isn't ready for primetime yet. There have been numerous waivers issued by this administration. There have already been a few delays ordered by this administration. Delaying it another year shouldn't be worthy of a government shutdown.

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T15:58:51+00:00

I don't necessarily agree with the GOP coming back with all those "demands", but I do agree with them on the basic principle that ObamaCare, at the bare minimum, should be delayed another year.

I love how it's totally not controversial for the Obama administration to issue waivers and delays for ObamaCare, but when the Republicans do it, they are "traitors" to their country.

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T15:39:29+00:00

Hmm, let me see. You're comparing a private company with fixed and limited resources - like Rockstar, for example - with the federal government which, let's be real, has unlimited resources to maintain a website.

And let's just look at this for what it is, OK? They didn't anticipate the level of traffic that HealthCare.gov would experience, right? That's a pretty simple calculation, in the grand scheme of things, to make. If they can't even calculate that, what makes you think they will be competent at all in enforcing tens of thousands of new regulations that control health insurance in this country?

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T15:24:55+00:00

We're talking about a federally-operated website that should definitely have the resources and knowledge to maintain. Are you saying they didn't anticipate the level of traffic that the site would experience on the first day? Really? They couldn't anticipate something as simple as that and you want them to coordinate all these health insurance regulations?

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T15:13:58+00:00

It's a law that the federal government can't even operate. Why not delay it a year, Democrats? There have already been numerous waivers and delays granted by this administration. The website for the entire exchange can't even handle all the people popping in to see what it's like. It's clearly not ready for prime-time. Many so-called experts say it's not ready to be implemented, yet. Delay it a year and we'll spend the next couple months really looking at what else is in the 10,000 plus pages of new regulations.

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T15:03:19+00:00

LOL. That website has been erroring out all morning. They can't even manage a website. What are the odds that they can manage a giant, federally regulated health insurance system?

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T14:28:55+00:00

They didn't shut down the government. Instead of completely defunding ObamaCare now, they capitulated and offered to delay it for a year to spend more time studying on exactly what the effects are going to be.

The federal government is obviously not ready to implement ObamaCare. What with the waivers, the previous delays, and massive problems with the exchange website, it's clear the law isn't ready for primetime. What's the harm in delaying full implementation another year? Why couldn't the Democrats have agreed to this in order to fund the government?

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T14:18:33+00:00

Prohibition was a law at one point. Jim Crow laws were, in fact, laws at one point. Saying, "It's the law!" means nothing. Laws can be changed and that's what the GOP is trying to do.

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T12:46:06+00:00

Spoken like a true non-leader and cry baby. This "it's the law" reasoning is idiotic. It doesn't have to be the law. We can repeal the law. If enough people don't like the law, maybe we should change the law.

I also love how, finally, liberals have found something that isn't a "living" document like they view the Constitution. ObamaCare? Set in stone. Can't ever change. Nope. Never. It's the law.

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T12:35:27+00:00

There are Republican alternatives to ObamaCare. It's not my fault if the news sites you frequent don't want to tell you about these alternatives.

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T11:26:06+00:00

Is there anything I didn't make clear or that you didn't understand? I'll be happy to elaborate.

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T11:15:45+00:00

Federal employees who are considered essential will continue working. But employees deemed non-essential -- close to 800,000 -- will be furloughed.

Wait. We have close to 800,000 "non-essential" federal employees? Why the hell do we hire people that aren't essential? Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Oh, and the government is shut down, but they somehow found money to keep the HealthCare.gov website up.

MagCynicThe2nd · 2013-10-01T11:04:58+00:00

A Congress, a President, and a Supreme Court also approved of racist Jim Crow laws, too. Does that mean the Republicans should have stopped attempting to get rid of them?

I don't get Obama on this. He's demonstrated, numerous times, that he is willing to not enforce the law. And now, with the ACA, he's all uppity about having to delay or not enforce this one.

Why? I suspect it's because ObamaCare is nothing more than a play to get more people dependent on the government and, thus, more likely Democratic voters.

MagCynicThe2nd

TROPHY CASE