|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
No running away where we can't poke you with sticks if you're wrong!
We'll need some form of solace darn it!
Technically in Pathfinder neither do paladins or clerics, though in Golarion all clerics have a deity.
[saracasm]Nope, can't move. Therefore as the world spins and moves he stays in place as the galaxy continues moving leaving him for a death in space. Other people can't lift him up and move him. He's immune to being swallowed since that would be movement and so on.[/sarcasm]
Also the RNC who ran servers for the White House and destroyed the evidence rather than turn it over to Congress as required by law.
But I'm noticing a distinct lack of calls for Gowdy and Issa who both did actually release material to go to jail as well.
Weapon Enchantments that are good for a spellcaster:
Steve Geddes wrote:
He kind of did in part. But he loaned his campaign the money at first. It was only when donors had a fit about it that he supposedly forgave those loans to himself, though last I checked he hadn't actually filed the paperwork to forgive them, he simply said he had/would.
Yeah... unless O'Keefe releases all of the unedited film I have no reason to even watch the video.
Quite frankly as a source of information he is shot. Nothing he has produced has been even close to what actually happens once the unedited paperwork is released.
Basically he is bad and if he's your source then you should feel bad too.
Going back to an earlier conversation (because I was unavailable): I think that both libertarianism and communism is both are formed from a virtue.
Communism from altruism/generosity and libertarianism from Honesty/integrity.
And honestly this is why they both fail in practice so far, they don't address their associated vice; communism and sloth and libertarianism and greed.
Capitalism works because at it's core it is based on vice, so appeals to the lowest common denominator. This also allows us to dress it up over time to conform to societal tolerances.
It always seemed to me confusion is more or less the normal state of humanity.
I honestly don't think there is one way you are supposed to feel. I understand if that provides little comfort up front but remember that means what you are feeling isn't nessecarily wrong. If you need the feelings to change that's understandable too.
I try to always remember people aren't who I last met. We change everyday, heck every minute as our bodies and minds are in constant flux. So if you are male today and not tomorrow but are again on Wednesday that is okay. The more important part is to deal with the stress that puts on your mind and body.
...how much more rope is Trump going to call for to hang himself? That was quite a boneheaded step for him--the easiest thing for Hillary to do to counter that would be to agree to it, and insist that he do the same.
I think he's trying to get enough rope to touch the ground instead of hanging.
The problem being is he doesn't realize just how long of a drop it is going to be.
Why do I get more interesting info about politics out of gaming forums then the news?
Not to be rude or harsh, but because you need to diversify where you get your news from and how to do research on topics you hear about?
I like using the AP website and checking the raw news. 90% of news media is based off of AP reports so you get closer to the source that way.
BBC is another main source site as they also still have a world wide reporting netword; NPR is a good third.
Next you want a good aggregation site (strangely I like Fark.com) and several professional industry level news services.
Double check ownerships and track media corporation relationships (for example clearwater and iheart radio are huge and diverse in the stations they own and a bit chummy with each other).
Diego Rossi wrote:
And as you can plainly see being willing only matters to spells that require a willing target. Voluntarily foregoing a save throw is not the same as being a willing target.
So for aiming a spell some spells require a willing target and for that unconscious creatures count as willing.
Voluntarily giving up a save throw is a voluntary choice that can be made (and typically is for spells requiring willing targets) but willingly accepting a spell and voluntarily failing a save throw is not the same as being a willing target for a spell that requires such.
In other news, Trump is now trying to tell the people of Nevada how to pronounce their state's name.
Which explains why Nevada went blue in the polls recently.
captain yesterday wrote:
WWhat would be worse is if Pence does significantly better than Trump did then Trump might shoot him in the foot for making Trump look bad. I could see Trump shooting off at the mouth because his second fiddle guy out plays him.
When this election is over if he doesn't win watching his campaign staff turn vulture for the money and fame/notoriety is going to be interesting.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
See this is just what a master Trump is; he sets the bar low, then he walks under it and claims to be the winner of the limbo contest, those other losers just kept going over it! Can you believe how foolish they must feel?
HOOORK!!! HOOOORRRRkkkK! HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOORK! Ugh must be food poisoning...
Honestly for a very long time I was a believer in the "thin blue line" and as a concept I still believe it has merit and value.
However as a concept compared to the modern practice I have several worries in how it is being executed.
I pointed out before and I will again how it seems just having a weapon and being black is grounds for police to treat you as a hostile force. I do not see how the NRA can abide by that at all if they are honest in their mission.
We have people that will state as their sincerely held belief that merely disobeying a police officer is grounds for summary execution. This is not an exaggeration; the idea that a police officer is allowed to use lethal force in order to illicit compliance with his orders is giving him carte blanche to perform summary executions to those who offend him by not complying.
The fact that we as a society seem comfortable with the idea that someone can be arrested only for resisting arrest is unfathomable to me.
I cannot be punished in the military simply for existing. I cannot be ordered to confinement and restricted rations simply as a course of action.
I must confess it worries me that behavior that is unacceptable in a war zone seems to be acceptable for the defenders of the public.
I REALLY need to prove that there are a multitude of regulatory b@&!*%%% around, thejeff? Really?
Honestly I'm with Jeff on this one. Usually what people mean when they claim "bad regulation" is "I can't pollute and waste people as I want to make me more money"
basically it's always "bad regulation" until it protects the one complaining and then it's "common sense measures that are needed."
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Just so you know I'm not avoiding an unpleasantness; I accept that allegations have been raised and it is my hope and desire that the truth of these allegations is established and any wrongdoing is appropriately punished.
Well I think the discussion certainly has room for questioning why the police felt she had to be detained as that certainly colors all further conversation about expectations from the police. This merely confirms if they were in the wrong from the start or not.
Added to this the fact that their stated cause fails in that their actions after that point do not meet the requirements placed upon them by that cause means their motives are suspect as well.
As such while their initial reasoning was sound the fact they failed to follow up on the obligations they saw for themselves followed by their actions against the person in question leads me to conclude not only did they do wrong by her but they also were negligent in their duty as well.
One or the other would be bad enough, but combined their treatment of the girl is well beyond the limits of what is acceptable.
So I guess I should have said:
A requirement to detain is not the question for me, its the activities taken after they had her in the car and the fact they failed in their stated duties towards the girl. The pepper spraying after the door was closed, and then failing in a duty they placed upon themselves willingly, is beyond the pale of what anyone could call acceptable
The Raven Black wrote:
I think you meant Abu Ghraib as to prove that bad things can happen to those in custody, as far as I know there has not be mistreatment of people in Guantanamo (if the people there belong in custody is a separate issue I have no intentions of discussing at all).
I do not dispute that bad things have happened to people in custody but typically those that do the bad things do become recognized and prosecuted. I know that is cold comfort to their victims but beyond training, attempting prevention and punishment for those that do infringe I do not know what else the military can do.
I believe that those same steps could handle the situation in the USA as well but that would require the police to punish those that do overstep and to take actions to prevent oversteps instead of finding reasons to justify them.
As such I don't think the current culture will allow the transition that needs to happen at this time.
What I keep wondering is where all the 2nd amendment people are each time a police officer states, "the perpetrator was armed." as if that was an excuse for an execution.
Supposedly being armed in the USA is not a crime, and yet we keep hearing how that one fact somehow changes everything and makes shooting the person okay.
In Afghanistan everyone is armed (slight exaggeration) with full automatic weaponry, and yet that is not an excuse for Soldiers to go around shooting anyone that looks at them wrong. I don't see how it's an excuse for police officers.
The Raven Black wrote:
I have the feeling that police officers in the States are incredibly stressed, tense and even scared
Which is really awkward since we know this has been the safest time to be an officer in the USA in history. But your thoughts on the subject could be correct, a person's fears are rarely tied to a substantial threat to their persons.
Mixing that with weapons and authority / power never ends well
Is my feeling substantiated ?
Feelings are weird in that they are not facts except as known to the person sharing them, so your feelings (that is to stay thoughts) on what another feels is hard to substantiate or dismiss
Is it time for Robocop yet ? (Pitiful attempt at levity)
I don't think it's that bad yet.
If I was in a warzone, in a firefight and my squad captured enemy combatants and after we had them secured I chose to then use attack the detainees, I would have committed a war crime in violation of the Geneva Conventions and should be brought up on charges, stripped of rank and sent to serve time in a military jail.
Realize that detainees are generally belligerent and have a recognized right and duty to attempt escape. In fact while the military force is expected to work diligently in retaining prisoners they are not supposed to punish those that attempt escape for the attempt in and of itself (the detaining force may however increase security measures so as to prevent escape).
The fact that an authority having gained control of the situation where someone (regardless of status of being a minor) who was already injured in a peaceful country and then the authority figure pepper sprays the injured and detained person angers and disgusts me.
The fact that someone would argue that what is not acceptable in a warzone with belligerent detainees is somehow acceptable in a peaceful environment with civilians for the sole purpose of not being cooperative when the person was injured in an accident, is appalling, and blows my mind.
Please note this is not questioning the detaining of the individual itself, merely the actions taken from there.
Rage (Ex) wrote:
Constructed Race Trait wrote:
I think I said all that needs to be said (that being there is little benefit from raging for an android) but with that yes an android can rage, it's just a penalty for them to do so (-2 penalty to AC no bonuses). However yes you will have the use of your rage powers, so I guess that's something.
Lets do ourselves a favor:
If you suggest spending cuts list out where you think those cuts should come from. If not specific programs then at minimum the departments you think can take the cuts (break it out more if you want, for example military hardware as opposed to military pay and training if you like).
Simply calling for "cuts" by itself is basically useless.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
They could... IF they refuse to bake any wedding cakes at all. At which point they don't provide the service to anyone and therefore no one could claim they are being denied due to considerations base on religion.
But that is a deceptive answer because the question presupposes that the homosexual bakers would not refuse a non-Christian.
And as a leftist I take some umbrage at the accusation that I "bash Christians", those that follow the teachings of Jesus Have my utmost respect. Those that try to claim a title without following the teacher get my contempt.
Again, it is the acts I judge. If you claim a faith and don't live up to the tenets then I don't owe you respect for the faith you claim.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
insert xkcd "here's the door" comic here
this should be entertaining.
All I can say is if I acted like that in warzone I would be spending many years in Leavenworth and rightly so.
Yet with police deaths and crime in general at an aall time low somehow police are under seige and responding as if everyone owes them obedience and their first duty is to come home alive.
It is personally offensive to me on a professional level.
To comment quickly on the military post: I make no excuses for how people have been treated in the past. Many groups have served with distinction that was not recognized (at a minimum formally) for far too long.
However the military is downsizing now. The military is removing people for every reason it can find.
So to deliver the charge that it's just a way to get more bodies into the 'war machine' is grossly unfair, inaccurate, and untrue.
To be brutually honest It would be easier to not address this issue at this time. That would keep those that attack any progress off the military's back, and allow a convenient (if wrong) reason to remove people or prevent them from joining in the first place
It's still a useful question because you can lobby for where taxes are spent.
I mean yeah you generally have to pay (at least at our level in the society pool) but that doesn't mean you can't push for better efficiency, or for different priorities. I would point out that's exactly what republicans are doing when they frame issues as "not having enough to pay all these entitlements!" and whatnot.
Democrats do it back by pointing out efficiencies and how small such programs are as a percentage of the total budget or how social security is self paying and we should stop borrowing from it.
and so on and so forth.
Of course before you should do any of that you have to know what the taxes are going to and how it's developing.
For example businesses profit enormously from the transportation department and typically under contribute to the funds that provide for the infrastructure they are so heavily reliant on.
On the other hand there are other areas they represent more of the contributions than they perhaps should be.