Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Asmodeus

Andrew R's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 2,997 posts (2,998 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 4 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,997 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.

having psionics and magic different seems like it would only work well if both were more or less equally common. that way you have people making a choice to protect from one or the other (or try for both) not expecting only one to get sucker punched by the other.

Qadira

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I don't know Israeli Arabs from Adam, but my Hebrew-speaking expatriate comrade once scoffed when someone referred to Palestinians as second-class citizens.

"Second-class citizens are the sephardim. Third-class citizens are the beta. Fourth-class, now we speak of Arabs."

A bit old, but interesting:

Post-Zionism and the Sephardi Question

Wow that place is insane

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.

latent psion is a trait from Legacy of Fire AP, implies psionics exist in vudra

Qadira

bob_the_monster wrote:

This is not a thread about psionics. It is a thread about a prison campaign. I don't feel psionics has been legitimized in any Paizo published material about Golarion, thus I feel it has no place. My understanding is PFS feels exactly the same way, otherwise they'd allow psionics.

Let's keep the thread on topic please.

PFS cannot use a 3pp, however the word psionic and references to mental powers are in golarion already. If you don't want to use them because you don't wnt to fine, but the SETTING of golarion is NOT the issue

Qadira

Because it is a good, flexible system and some of the classes are rather unique.

Qadira

ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
. What did I say that was an insult?
ShadowcatX wrote:
And as no surprise you are totally unabe to give a non-biased answer. There are none soblind as those who refuse to see.

You called me blind and biased. That is an ad hom, not an argument. Note the complete, total, and utter lack of substance to anything you've said to actually make your argument.

Do better.

Quote:
Merely pointing out that your argument is hypocritical

Which you haven't done. You didn't even mention hypocrisy, much less demonstrated it.

And you are. Wanting Israel to be ok with something you'd certainly never be ok with, ignoring the number of rockets fired into Israel, etc. And I don't have to say the word hypocritical to show your argument is, obvious hypocrisy is obvious.

But you are vehment in your hatred and I doubt this will get through that any more than anything else I have said will.

So are you ok with bombing detroit to get the criminals there?

Qadira

The Palestinian authority can no more stop ALL rocket attacks and suicide bombers than detroit's government can stop all street crime

Qadira

Bill Lumberg wrote:

Once were are without benefit of elctricity and modern tehnology, the Amish will swoop down on us like the Mongol Hordes. Try to sleep with that knowledge.

Extinction roll
1d100

Okay, not this year, but soon.

even the amish will suffer, even if to a lesser degree. They buy supplies from the high tech world too and will likely become a target of violence.

Qadira

it has happened, it will happen. it is just a matter of when and how hard it hits. Something on the scale of the Carrington Event will kill the majority of the human race either directly by ending access to food, medicine or water or through the violence to follow.

And to any that say it is "only a 10% chance or so' i have a 10 shot revolver if you want to play russian roulette with those kinda odds

Qadira

i say they want some desert to live in give the isrealis nevada. there no more reason to fight in the ME

Qadira

ShadowcatX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
At the same time, the 1967 borders create massive security problems for Israel. Large sections of the country are within 10 miles of the border (target-able by rockets}

By that logic the Palestinians need enough land to put most of palastine out of range of Israels helicopters, because they need security from the attacks.

Thats the problem with your arguments: they cut equally both ways but you only want to aim them in one direction.

If there are 100 missiles launched (just for a round number) in any given month, how many do you think come from Israel?

maybe one or two, but they are the ones that blow up a school and hospital instead of landing in a field.

Qadira

DrDeth wrote:
Lenthalia wrote:

I've got a 5 intelligence Demon-Spawn Tiefling I'm going to be using in PFS. Now, since it's PFS, I could in most cases simply ignore my intelligence, as it has no effect in PFS outside of skill points and other direct numerical things.

However, I don't want to do this, and would actually like to make something fun out of the fact that my character is mentally challenged.

Now, if we assume that the majority of the common folk are generated via 3d6 methods, that means that he's dumber than 96.7% of the populace.

*

For Golarion, this is incorrect. About one NPC in six has a Int of 8, other than a few set-pieces, that's the lowest. In other words, folks in Golarion are NOT rolled 3d6 but use the standard array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8) or Elite array.

Now, as far as acting stupid, this gets very old, very quick. Suitable for a Toon! game, but not D&D.

Also, they may be folks at your table that will be offended by this.

If they are going to BE stupid they should be played as stupid. that doesn't mean you have to be cartoonish about it. A lack of reasoning and problem solving skills, small vocabulary. not that hard and not insulting to anyone. Also reality is offensive.

Qadira

Honestly i think the MoMS is a trap, losing flurry is totally never worth it. qinggong is not bad, hamatulatsu master (inner sea combat) is powerful too. Vital strike is not a bad option for when you need to move but for ALL melee stand and deliver is the standard

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Its a lose lose for the other states. Taking in the refugees would cost money, deprive them of a weapon, and invite retaliation any time Israel decided to snag some more land.

Also, they all look the same to us, but they were already a not so popular ethnic group BEFORE this whole mess started.

It would certainly deprive them of a weapon, because once the Palestinian issue is resolved, people might realize that the only liberally-minded nation in the region was Israel. Way easier to get the world distracted by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than let the world focus on the moral, economic, educational, and cultural failings of the rest of the Middle East (quick: which nation in the region is rated highest by the Human Development Index? Here's a hint: it's the only functional democracy in the region).

The sooner the Palestinians figure that out other interests need them as martyrs, the sooner a real and lasting peace will be forged.

Isreal brought resources and education in from europe that the rest lack and are bankrolled by america. Cannot call that a fair competition.

how can second class "citizens" locked in what amounts to concentration camps find peace with people that mistreat them daily?

Qadira

Invisible Kierkegaard wrote:

I'd love to have an intelligent discussion of veganism and the reasoning behind it.

I've looked to see how many people are vegan in the US, but it's hard to pin down. About 5% self-identify as vegetarian, but I've heard people say they were vegetarian because they only eat chicken and/or fish (really!).

It seems to be growing, but some people try it for awhile, then give up. Others love it. It seems many people are more aware of the connection between what's on their plate and how it got there, thanks to documentaries like Earthlings (NSFW). Even environmentalists often ignore the impact of our food choices on the planet.

When I go to cons, it's clear that most gamers aren't particularly worried about what they eat, or how much. With a third of the planet obese or overweight, we're hardly unique.

I necroed this thread, and I'll get the "Mmmmm, bacon!" out of the way.

Vegan Paizonians? More than in 2008? Fewer? Don't think I've ever met one. Represent!

I will agree that how we eat is a huge issue but giving up the all natural nutrition of meat is not the answer

Qadira

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
If the employer is made to pay an extra amount for the employee to get their own insurance, how it that separating health care from employment entirely?

It is making up the "compensation" to the employee that he got via insurance so that the worker is not now making less

Qadira

BigDTBone wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I think the best answer is to separate health care from employment entirely. Stop forcing the employer to subsidize health care at all, make them pay an extra amount for the individual to get their own insurance. Now it is no one's business but the insurance provider and insurance purchaser.
That defeats the ability to pool risk, unless you are prepared to accept a nationalized single payer system.

the insurance company pools risk within their clients

Qadira

I think the best answer is to separate health care from employment entirely. Stop forcing the employer to subsidize health care at all, make them pay an extra amount for the individual to get their own insurance. Now it is no one's business but the insurance provider and insurance purchaser.

Qadira

thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:


Let me put it to you this way:

By definition, with any given measure, half of all Americans are below average.

Assuming you think you're fully right on these issues and I'm wrong (or just a troll), well...

The fact that my vote counts as much as yours ought to give you pause. And, most importantly, it rather proves my point beyond dispute.

So you're basically opposed to the very concept of democracy? Not just the mob-rule version the FF were worried about but even the representative version they created.

Either that or you think that there's both some foolproof (or even mostly reliable) way of getting only the qualified people to vote and of having them actually consider the interests of the rest of the population.

"Owns property" certainly isn't it. Any version of "Literacy Tests" actually used certainly wasn't it.

Do you have a proposal? That isn't just rule by self-selecting elites?

I'll admit that the idea of too many idiot voters scares the hell out of me but it is still the best most fair option we can find.

Qadira

Quark Blast wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
You do realize your uncle and his friends paid into unemployment while they were employed, right?

My uncle found a job within 4 months (may have been within 3, I could ask if you care?).

Many of the "vacationers" could have too. Not only did they not try but they had no shame in their behavior. They didn't give it their best shot and then get frustrated after 20 or 30 weeks. I would not be surprised if some of them are still on the dole.

Unemployment insurance is not license to take a year-point-five vacation at government expense. Spin it however you want to make yourself feel good though. Social contract be darned.

My brother was one of those, would not try to get a job until the free money ended

Qadira

I will play any race. Maybe a quarter of my characters are female tops, depending on what group i play with. My characters tend to be themed around taking one personality trait out of proportion and that is more likely to be seen as offensive with gender crossing. We have 3 women in my group that freely crossdress one of which had the sorcerer that abused his high cha until we renamed him manwhore. The other 2 men in my main group are totally against playing females, but one (straight) one does have a gay cleric.

Qadira

Hama wrote:

So, if they make a useless character, but it makes them happy, that's it? And if other PCs die because his characters was useless, that's ok too? Playing a character who "doesn't make all the right choices" is ok. I even encourage it. But not making useless characters.

And, I've noticed among the people I game with that those who make useless characters are always the ones complaining that someone is annoying them by trying to give them advice.

That is how we are balanced with a 6 man group, 2 are very not optimized. 2 of us have enough system mastery to have to be careful to not over do it

Qadira

Samy wrote:
Angstspawn wrote:


But, nuclear war excepted (that would bring everyone at the same level), occident should manage the upcoming years quite better than most other countries.

I dunno, we have a lot further to fall... 10d6 falling damage compared to 1d6 for developing countries...

If we lose utilities, most people will just die... Kenyans will know what to do.

And terrorists could drop our power grid any time they wanted. Several attacks have already happened on substations including one shot apart with what is believed to be a 50 cal and one with a failed bomb. Lack of electricity is the main thing to prepare for because it controls so much of what we take for granted these days

Qadira

Coriat wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Coriat wrote:
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I say we reexamine the dog's proposal bit. a small efficient house on a few acres outside the city and a bit of education on agriculture is better than packing the city full of crime and full dependence. Might be far better off delivering a regular ration than a blank check to waste on overpriced junk. But once again it would make the corporate masters unhappy so it cannot be.

A) Farming isn't as easy as you think it is.

B) There isn't a lot of farmland waiting around to be discovered, the frontier is closed.

and, most importantly,

C) Your plan is basically a reenactment of what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia. Even you should be able to figure out the likely results of trying it again.

Although most feedback on this idea has focused on B and C, having farmed for a living before, A is also true.

Running an independent farm in the style you suggest is skilled labor, requiring training, education and experience. Being lowest-level hired help weeding rows is one thing, but if you spend billions of dollars setting up the farms and houses, then send a bunch of city people who have never farmed before off to run their own small farms, the large majority of those farms will swiftly fail and you will end up with people needing financial assistance just as before, except you just wasted your welfare budget on tractors and decent agricultural land, neither of which are cheap and both of which will now be worth less because uneducated use will have damaged them.

You might have some familiarity with farming but what kind? Independent city gardeners are able to produce hundreds of pounds of food in city lots. smart gardening techniques can produce huge crops in little space and require little education to do and not a huge start up cost. i would rather my tax money went to starting people towards self sufficiency than and endless pit of full dependence.
Small orchard with mixed crops...

It is meant as a supplement, not as a full diet. Fresh natural eggs from a small flock of chickens, fresh fruit and veg, plenty left over to can for later in the year mixed with meats and grains not so easily grown

Qadira

Squeakmaan wrote:

Monsanto owns seed rights, they didn't invent that you know, not saving seeds has been a very common thing since hybridized crops have been around. I know quite a few local farmers who plant GM crops, they do so because it increases their profits, no other reason, if they didn't they would just go to another supplier.

Edited: This is somewhat far afield of the original topic, but i would not mind discussing it further in a separate thread.

Monsanto is a monster, almost everyone i know goes to heritage lines whenever they can

Qadira

thejeff wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Also having things taken from you is theft, being told how you can use other peoples things doesn't even resemble theft

But you don't want just "being told how you can use other people's things", but if you take government money, they get to control even your money.

Those working full time, but needing some food stamps to get by. You don't want them to be able to spend the money they earn as they wish. You think government knows better.

if you "need foodstamps to get by" how can you afford booze and smokes to begin with?

Qadira

3 people marked this as a favorite.

dave Arnson's Blackmoor, arguably the first world of D&D, had a crashed ship as well

Qadira

Irontruth wrote:


You call taxes theft, but you want complete government control over the household budget for people receiving aid.

How are taxes theft, but the government taking complete control over your finances NOT theft?

because you are asking the gov to finance you. You take care of your own business and the gov has no reason to be involved. Much as me and the soldier have differing levels of gov in our lives.

Also having things taken from you is theft, being told how you can use other peoples things doesn't even resemble theft

Qadira

http://www.motherearthnews.com/organic-gardening.aspx#axzz37rWl9Xa1
This mag has lots of great articles on how anyone even in small city lots can grow significant amounts of food. It does involve a little effort though

Qadira

thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Andrew R wrote:

You are right that an oversupply of people is an issue. That doesn't change the fact that money taken from others to fund them is being misused. Part of why i would love to see more of them gardening on a scale verging on farming to feed themselves more. We need more of the people out of the cities and into a position to feed themselves, that would be a better use of our money.

I say we reexamine the dog's proposal bit. a small efficient house on a few acres outside the city and a bit of education on agriculture is better than packing the city full of crime and full dependence. Might be far better off delivering a regular ration than a blank check to waste on overpriced junk. But once again it would make the corporate masters unhappy so it cannot be..

I remember someone else who proposed moving mass populations out of the cities into the country side to farm for themselves. A Cambodian gentleman by the name of Pol Pot.

Your proposal has some few complications you and the Dog seem to have forgotten...

It's not just putting up a house, you need all the support for it... water, a rather basic necessity, sewage, which means you're looking at environmental impact, roads, (you've got to get them there somehow), power, and provision for communications, or is the idea to create a new form of solitary confinement via isolation?

One other thing, those acres outside of the city? You're going to find that they are under the jurisdiction of towns full of property owners, who in general are NOT going to be enthusiastic about the idea of the government building Poor Towns in their backyard. Not to mention the developers looking for their next big area to add to suburban sprawl.

We're back to the frontier thing again. If we could provide 40 acres and a mule, it might work. But there just isn't the land available to give any noticeable number of people even a few acres and a small efficient house.

look into how many millions of acres the gov owns. That could make a whole lot of microfarms. and i would rather they spent the money to make long term choices than throw money at the poor forever without any effect.

Qadira

Coriat wrote:
Usagi Yojimbo wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
I say we reexamine the dog's proposal bit. a small efficient house on a few acres outside the city and a bit of education on agriculture is better than packing the city full of crime and full dependence. Might be far better off delivering a regular ration than a blank check to waste on overpriced junk. But once again it would make the corporate masters unhappy so it cannot be.

A) Farming isn't as easy as you think it is.

B) There isn't a lot of farmland waiting around to be discovered, the frontier is closed.

and, most importantly,

C) Your plan is basically a reenactment of what the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia. Even you should be able to figure out the likely results of trying it again.

Although most feedback on this idea has focused on B and C, having farmed for a living before, A is also true.

Running an independent farm in the style you suggest is skilled labor, requiring training, education and experience. Being lowest-level hired help weeding rows is one thing, but if you spend billions of dollars setting up the farms and houses, then send a bunch of city people who have never farmed before off to run their own small farms, the large majority of those farms will swiftly fail and you will end up with people needing financial assistance just as before, except you just wasted your welfare budget on tractors and decent agricultural land, neither of which are cheap and both of which will now be worth less because uneducated use will have damaged them.

You might have some familiarity with farming but what kind? Independent city gardeners are able to produce hundreds of pounds of food in city lots. smart gardening techniques can produce huge crops in little space and require little education to do and not a huge start up cost. i would rather my tax money went to starting people towards self sufficiency than and endless pit of full dependence.

Qadira

Irontruth wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Even if the cards cannot buy them they should be using the money they have to pay bills not wallow in some of the most expensive vices.

Exactly how do you plan on enforcing this? How do you keep people who get assistance from using any other money they have to buy alchohol or cigarettes? Shall we stamp a big red "W" on their foreheads? Set up a database that every store has access to that determines who is allowed to buy what and then require identification and tracking of every purchase?

Do you have any idea how expensive that would be? Compared to the money "wasted" currently?

And especially in the case of cigarettes, given how addictive they are, will just push smokers into a black market anyway.

And seriously, tobacco and booze aren't anywhere near the most expensive vices. That's why they're poor people vices.

Do not give them a card like they get now. attach it to their ID and simply check ID for all purchases, many stores do already to avoid sales to minors.

Not expensive? 3 packs a day (many smokers do that and more) buys my car every year.

So, your solution to this is increasing government oversight and control of people's lives? You are advocating that the government should have the authority to tell people what they can and cannot buy with their own money.

That sounds like communism.

I am advocating telling anyone that wants to enter into an agreement with the gov what they can do. Just as soldiers have to give up certain things so should those that want money for nothing

Qadira

Dumb as hell. if they wanted to have more female characters make more not screw up existing and beloved character.

Qadira

thejeff wrote:
GregH wrote:
thejeff wrote:
He's not saying they do that. He's saying they shouldn't be allowed to buy alcohol or cigarettes if they get assistance, even if they do it with cash.
But, isn't that an infringement on their freedoms?
And any means to do so would be an infringement on everyone's. Exactly the kind of thing right-wingers accuse liberals of dreaming about.

having an ID and being expected to show it to buy restricted items is an infringement?

Wow you better stop the state of MI and most of our stores.

Qadira

GregH wrote:
thejeff wrote:

He's not saying they do that. He's saying they shouldn't be allowed to buy alcohol or cigarettes if they get assistance, even if they do it with cash.

But, isn't that an infringement on their freedoms?

Not at all, it is the cost of expecting others to pay for you

Qadira

thejeff wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Even if the cards cannot buy them they should be using the money they have to pay bills not wallow in some of the most expensive vices.

Exactly how do you plan on enforcing this? How do you keep people who get assistance from using any other money they have to buy alchohol or cigarettes? Shall we stamp a big red "W" on their foreheads? Set up a database that every store has access to that determines who is allowed to buy what and then require identification and tracking of every purchase?

Do you have any idea how expensive that would be? Compared to the money "wasted" currently?

And especially in the case of cigarettes, given how addictive they are, will just push smokers into a black market anyway.

And seriously, tobacco and booze aren't anywhere near the most expensive vices. That's why they're poor people vices.

Do not give them a card like they get now. attach it to their ID and simply check ID for all purchases, many stores do already to avoid sales to minors.

Not expensive? 3 packs a day (many smokers do that and more) buys my car every year.

Qadira

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I'm a little confused. What exactly is the point of blowing up a building if they know the bomb is comming? I mean the entire point of those rockets is they DON"T take a base or infrastructure to set up. Its easier to get down the stairs than grandma.

So they can claim to be the good guys while taking houses and infrastructure from the Palestinians. Would be like giving us an e-mail 10 minutes before 9-11 and pretending that makes it somehow less terrorism.

Qadira

And it is not "only the rich" it is only those who earn for themselves.

Qadira

Freehold DM wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
But this story is still no defense of how so many misuse and abuse the system.

I'll try once again.

Where's your evidence for this misuse and abuse? Clear evidence that shows the statistics that I and others have already posted showing that e.g. 98-99% of the help actually goes to the right people are wrong.
*crickets*
I'd say about 85%.

85% what?

I was referring to evidence like this and similar statistics.
I would say about 85% of the people on food stamps are legit.
Are you basing that on anything other than gut feeling? Gentle Giant just posted evidence that contradicts that. Where does your number come from?
guy feeling and experience and work. There are thieves and assorted bad people out there, but not as many as some believe
maybe but it would be easy to make it a LOT less
Sorry, Andrew, carpet bombing poor neighborhoods is off the table.
Nope but no reason we cannot take the fun out of it to encourage work. Stop the use on energy drinks and bar them from vices like tobacco and booze.

Only the rich can enjoy a smoke and an alcoholic beverage!!!

Also, at least in NY, you cannot use benefits to buy cigarettes and alcohol. You have to do some underhanded stuff to get cash for your benefits in order to do this. Still not sure why your state allows this, but it sounds like a MI issue.

Even if the cards cannot buy them they should be using the money they have to pay bills not wallow in some of the most expensive vices.

Qadira

Freehold DM wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Work is not the issue. Earning your resources honestly is. Be it farming, gathering from nature, any traditional job, being a hooker or anything else someone agrees to pay you for. Not taking, earning. If someone is willing to pay you to do whatever that is between you and them but you are never right to take any resource from another they are not willing to give.

Unless of course you have the legal right to do so. Like collection agent or Repo Man.

And once we concede that, we see that it's not so simple. The guy on welfare of course is not taking "any resource from another they are not willing to give." He's getting his resources from a government that is willing to give them to him. And the government has the legal right to collect taxes to get those resources.
So where's the problem? Other than that you don't like it.

Which is why we keep coming back to "taxation is theft, but only when it's for things I don't approve of".

On the flip side, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to your general attitude if we were living in a time where our major societal was a lack of labor. Right now, our problem is much closer to the opposite. We have an oversupply of labor and not enough employment. If all these lazy leeches got up off their butts and really started looking for work (or for second or third jobs, "Uniquely American, isn't it?"), we wouldn't suddenly have a booming economy, we'd just have more people filling out applications for each position. Jobs wouldn't magically appear for all of them. There'd just be more people competing for them. And if we cut all the benefits and unemployment (oh wait, we've done that bit), we'd just have more lines at the food pantries and more homeless people, because we're not providing jobs for them!

If we were at full employment and wages were rising because businesses were desperate to find workers, and we still had all these layabouts, then it would be a different story.

Legal
...

Sure, crushing big business that thinks it should control us is part of what must be done if we are to remain a free people

Qadira

Squeakmaan wrote:
Unfortunately gut feeling is one of the absolute worst ways to accurately judge things on such a large scale, our perceptions are notoriously unreliable. According to the link provided by Gentle Giant it's about 99% legit, unless you have some specific evidence to counter their analysis, you may not want to rely on gut feeling. It's for this reason anecdotes are not considered data.

if you consider living off redbull, doritos and jerky while boozing and smoking money that could pay bills proper use sure it isn't being abused

Qadira

Freehold DM wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
But this story is still no defense of how so many misuse and abuse the system.

I'll try once again.

Where's your evidence for this misuse and abuse? Clear evidence that shows the statistics that I and others have already posted showing that e.g. 98-99% of the help actually goes to the right people are wrong.
*crickets*
I'd say about 85%.

85% what?

I was referring to evidence like this and similar statistics.
I would say about 85% of the people on food stamps are legit.
Are you basing that on anything other than gut feeling? Gentle Giant just posted evidence that contradicts that. Where does your number come from?
guy feeling and experience and work. There are thieves and assorted bad people out there, but not as many as some believe
maybe but it would be easy to make it a LOT less
Sorry, Andrew, carpet bombing poor neighborhoods is off the table.

Nope but no reason we cannot take the fun out of it to encourage work. Stop the use on energy drinks and bar them from vices like tobacco and booze.

Qadira

thejeff wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Work is not the issue. Earning your resources honestly is. Be it farming, gathering from nature, any traditional job, being a hooker or anything else someone agrees to pay you for. Not taking, earning. If someone is willing to pay you to do whatever that is between you and them but you are never right to take any resource from another they are not willing to give.

Unless of course you have the legal right to do so. Like collection agent or Repo Man.

And once we concede that, we see that it's not so simple. The guy on welfare of course is not taking "any resource from another they are not willing to give." He's getting his resources from a government that is willing to give them to him. And the government has the legal right to collect taxes to get those resources.
So where's the problem? Other than that you don't like it.

Which is why we keep coming back to "taxation is theft, but only when it's for things I don't approve of".

On the flip side, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to your general attitude if we were living in a time where our major societal was a lack of labor. Right now, our problem is much closer to the opposite. We have an oversupply of labor and not enough employment. If all these lazy leeches got up off their butts and really started looking for work (or for second or third jobs, "Uniquely American, isn't it?"), we wouldn't suddenly have a booming economy, we'd just have more people filling out applications for each position. Jobs wouldn't magically appear for all of them. There'd just be more people competing for them. And if we cut all the benefits and unemployment (oh wait, we've done that bit), we'd just have more lines at the food pantries and more homeless people, because we're not providing jobs for them!

If we were at full employment and wages were rising because businesses were desperate to find workers, and we still had all these layabouts, then it would be a different story.

Legal "right' and morally right are not the same thing. the gov could ok some heinous s*&T that doesn't mean it is ok to do now.

You are right that an oversupply of people is an issue. That doesn't change the fact that money taken from others to fund them is being misused. Part of why i would love to see more of them gardening on a scale verging on farming to feed themselves more. We need more of the people out of the cities and into a position to feed themselves, that would be a better use of our money.

I say we reexamine the dog's proposal bit. a small efficient house on a few acres outside the city and a bit of education on agriculture is better than packing the city full of crime and full dependence. Might be far better off delivering a regular ration than a blank check to waste on overpriced junk. But once again it would make the corporate masters unhappy so it cannot be.

Qadira

Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
But this story is still no defense of how so many misuse and abuse the system.

I'll try once again.

Where's your evidence for this misuse and abuse? Clear evidence that shows the statistics that I and others have already posted showing that e.g. 98-99% of the help actually goes to the right people are wrong.
*crickets*
I'd say about 85%.

85% what?

I was referring to evidence like this and similar statistics.
I would say about 85% of the people on food stamps are legit.
Are you basing that on anything other than gut feeling? Gentle Giant just posted evidence that contradicts that. Where does your number come from?
guy feeling and experience and work. There are thieves and assorted bad people out there, but not as many as some believe

maybe but it would be easy to make it a LOT less

Qadira

Squeakmaan wrote:
Um, I'd like to see some statistics on that, because I have seen no evidence of such a thing.

Im guessing you never met an old school farmer

Qadira

MrTsFloatinghead wrote:
Andrew R wrote:

Ok so you managed to show one job that needs a specific program to work. Does that mean they also all need thousands of dollars in tools since i can name several jobs that take various tools? The majority of jobs do not need any goofy media, jobs among the poor laborers almost never require any more tech than a simple phone.

Right, so the jobs that poor people currently have, that aren't good enough for them to feed their families without assistance, those jobs don't require any kind of tech. GOOD jobs, you know, the kind that are worth doing, those often DO. Not to mention the plethora of creative endeavors that can be facilitated by the existence of technology.

Now, before you fire off another round of "Andrew R says nonsense because he thinks the things he feels are the same as actual facts", why don't you read up a bit about this? Are you so much of a moral coward that you can't even bother to research the possibility that you are wrong?

Andrew R wrote:

You are right, a balanced diet requires more than bean. but that bag of beans is still more nutritious than a bag of chips and cheaper and higher quantity as well. So throw in some canned or frozen veg (both cheap) some chicken (fairly cheap often on sale) maybe some apples since they are barely over a dollar a pound and wow you are eating real food (at a quantity to feed a family) cheaper than a bag of doritos, a jerky stick, and a can of red bull for a single dumbass. Smart shopping can bring the prices even lower by buying in bulk and separating it to freeze or can smaller portions. Being smart makes being poor suck much less. One of the things i love about the mags i read about living simply is the teach you to make the most of small budgets and gardening small spaces. Yes some are smart enough to get on the trend of urban gardening and farmers markets. Many simply enjoy eating garbage with someone else's money, why eat healthy?

Sociology and economics are neither on nutrition. reading those

...

Sorry but the facts stand that most jobs do not require that nonsense. Sorry that in your tiny world all you see is a couple that do.

Don't have time to shop or cook? doubt that. really do. Cannot afford deals? are you insane? They can afford redbull and a bag of jerky (thats $10) but a meal for a family for the same price they cannot somehow afford? and even easy microwave food is cheaper and more nutritious than doritos and redbull. and most kids can handle to microwave. But that would be too much work for you now wouldn't it...

Work is not the issue. Earning your resources honestly is. Be it farming, gathering from nature, any traditional job, being a hooker or anything else someone agrees to pay you for. Not taking, earning. If someone is willing to pay you to do whatever that is between you and them but you are never right to take any resource from another they are not willing to give.

Qadira

I just achtyped them into more generic holy warriors for each god regardless of alignment personally

Qadira

that works too

Qadira

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
You are right, a balanced diet requires more than bean. but that bag of beans is still more nutritious than a bag of chips and cheaper and higher quantity as well.
If welfare leeches were eating nutritious meals, wouldn't they just live longer and suck up more of your tax dollars?

maybe but i would be paying less for medical bills. diabetics are not cheap

Qadira

Well your arab terrorist friend is probably tired of the republican allegiance to isreal and support of how isreal treats others. i can sympathize with him there even if it is not enough to make me side with the dems more

1 to 50 of 2,997 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.