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

Asphere's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 681 posts (683 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 681 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:


Except for those of us who find "advantage" and "disadvantage" limiting and boring as watching paint dry.

Really? I guess I don't get why recalling numerous situational modifiers is exciting.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:


To Hit, it would be 5(20STR) +6 (lvl20) +3 (mgc wpn), +4 (max bless result) = +18 to hit. I think they had someone mention something else that might give an additional +2 for a total of 20, but can't recall what it was. I think if you used a ranged weapon you could have an additional +2 in fighting styles for +20 to +22

AC

18 (Plate) +3 (mgc armr) +2 (shield) +3 (mgc shld) +1 (fighing style defense) +2 (Haste) +1 (ring of protection) = 30

If you actually can caste Shield on you and have someone else caste haste and concentrate you get after you have a reaction, for one round

+5 AC = 35 AC for one round.

So with magic items and spells this is no big deal. Without magic items and spells and a 100% defensive position the highest you are going to reach would be 18(plate) +2 (shield) = 20. The magic items you listed are essentially the best available and whenever another player uses a spell on you they are losing that option for themselves (checks and balances). Likewise, choosing to go 100% defensive means that you can't do any damage (again checks and balances). This is a non-issue.

The same is true of your hit calculation. Without the very best magic items and without spells cast on you, +5 (20 str) +6 (proficiency bonus) is +11 to hit. Again, this is a non-issue.

Shadow Lodge

GreyWolfLord wrote:
Asphere wrote:
Sounds great. I preordered it so I can't wait to get it. For all the people that complained about modularity not being present, does this help quell your concerns?

No, it's not actually the modularity they promised that was being looked for.

I would post the specific links to the things they stated, but I'm going to avoid being seen as edition warring, as that's not what I'm doing at all. More upset at being lied to, and that's the reaction.

You can look at some of the 4e forums for more information on what people are upset about.

Me, I wasn't necessarily as upset about there being or not being modularity, but considering previous comments of theirs, the feeling of being lied to.

Blatant lying is one way to turn me off to something REAL QUICK.

BUT, I've cooled down since then, I'll wait to see if they release anything with their online DMG update before accepting that they were blatantly dishonest.

Most of the 4e players who were looking for the promised modularity however, have not been that patient (most went off on WotC around the end of October).

I don't know how the other editions players feel about it, so no idea how the AD&D players or others feel about the modularity.

Please note, the only reason I answered this was to answer your question, NOT to start anything in regards to being anti-edition or edition warring, and hopefully my response is not taken as such.

The ENworld thread is interesting. The most interesting debate I saw outside of my griefs was as follows. They comment on how high AC can get, but thus far I've seen people get higher AC than they state AC 28(I think I saw one as high as 35 AC in 5e?), so some of the options should turn out to be uniquely interesting in regards to how high AC can get in relation to how high the chances to hit get (I think I saw something with a +17 or 18 or 19 to hit or something?).

I also saw something in regards to magic item creation and economy of scale. It appears to make magic items there...

I would like to see the links were they promised to do anything and what these promises were. Maybe they tried and couldn't get it to work without breaking the game? Could you provide specific examples? I know that you are trying to avoid an edition war, but posts which aren't specific tend to come off as a soap box and tend to push rational conversation away and promote the very thing you wish to avoid.

From what I can tell, the DMG makes it so you can take a relatively simple game and add optional rules to it to get more of a tactical game that is grid dependent. I think that is really great because I want to bring some of those rules into the game but not all of them.

As far as ACs of 32 and hits of +17...how? I have been playing pretty hardcore and the highest I can get on AC without magic armor is 20 (magic armor isn't going to get you +12 to AC though). To hit would be +9 if both Ability score increases are taken over feats. I would be interested to see this math.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ganryu wrote:

I think bugleyman was insinuating that no matter what actually happens there will always be someone complaining on the internet about it and that you, arguing that this information should quell concerns of potential complainers, did not seem, in his/her eyes, to be aware of this fact.

Also you look like acube, not asphere :O

Oh. Yeah. I didn't pick up on it. I see that now. It is late and I only had 1 cup of coffee today.

Also, there is a sphere inside the cube. He is shy.

Shadow Lodge

bugleyman wrote:
Asphere wrote:
For all the people that complained about modularity not being present, does this help quell your concerns?
Just got Internet access, I see? ;-)

Not following. Yesterday, using the internet, I read comments that expressed anger at 5E not being as modular as promised. But if the OP's comments above are true it seems reasonably modular to me.

Shadow Lodge

Sounds great. I preordered it so I can't wait to get it. For all the people that complained about modularity not being present, does this help quell your concerns?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:


There are going to be a bunch of people who are going to come in here and lay into you by saying that your expectations were off base and or crazy and it's not WOTC's fault that youre upset and that youre a bad person for feeling the way that you do.

IGNORE THOSE PEOPLE.

I will never understand this mentality. The OP is stating an opinion in a public forum. He clearly wants feedback on his opinions - that includes criticism. If he didn't want it, he might as well stand in front of a mirror and yell at himself.

I would not support any personal attacks, but I do believe that his expectations were off and it isn't out of line to point that out.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you misunderstood what modularity means. It doesn't mean that you will be able to make 5E look like 4E, 3E, or 2E (that would be impossible). It does mean that you will be able to add or ignore elements in the game without breaking it. From what I can tell the PHB is pretty much the basic bare bones game with a few options for gridded play and the DMG is adding a whole bunch of combat and grid options. You can basically take a simple game and add things onto it to make it more tactical and complicated. Additionally, it is really easy to add reasonable house rules without breaking the game - or so it has been in my experience.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will be Leatherface and my wife is going as Wednesday Addams. She wanted me to be Pugsley but I refused - besides, that is an odd couples costume because of the incest implications. I am pretty sure that Leatherface and Wednesday Addams would have hung out and went on adventures together.

Shadow Lodge

When I was 8 or so I was laying in bed under the blankets with a flashlight playing with those little toy plastic Indians (like the classic army green soldiers). I was laying on my stomach when I could hear a drum noise that sounded far away but it started getting louder. I was scared to come out from under the covers. I buried my head in my pillow and at some point I couldn't tell if I was hearing drums or if it was my heart beating. Just then I heard some sort of wind instrument like a flute or something softly playing from my bedroom door. I took the covers off my head and turned to look at the door and I could see the silhouette of a man standing in the doorway to my room. I tried to move but I couldn't. I was paralyzed. Also, I could feel something pressed down on my back. I remember being more terrified than I had every been in my life. The music continued to play and got louder and louder. I could tell from the silhouette that the man was the source of the music but I couldn't figure out what was on my back and why I couldn't move. Finally something snapped and I started screaming. Before I knew I could see my father burst through were the silhouette once stood in the doorway and the pressure on my back was gone and I could move again.

For years I was terrified that whenever I heard my beating heart that I would summon this shadowy man to me. Looking back, I recognize that I probably suffered some form of sleep paralysis as my experience sort of hits all of the red flags. I must have fallen asleep while playing with my toys.

Shadow Lodge

Short answer? Yes. Long answer? People have been requesting 3D modular castles for gaming from other companies for years. I think it will do very well.

Shadow Lodge

Javin Swifthand wrote:

To be honest

if a system works

and all the group enjoy it why change it????

There are different levels of enjoyment. They may enjoy something else even more.

Shadow Lodge

Bluenose wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
People like different tlevels of simplification/complexity. Hell, Swords and Wizardry alone acknowledges this, there are three flavors - White Box, Core, and Complete. Its entirely possible for someone to want something simpler than Pathfinder, but more complicated than 1e. 5e falls into that rulws-medium category.
I happen to know a couple of groups that tried 5e and have already given it up already. One, who hardly play anything but 3e, in large part because they thought it was "dumbed down". The other, who largely play games that aren't D&D, because it was too complex for their tastes - they'd heard it was simplified compared to previous editions, but it's certainly not the sort of rules-lite game they like.

Really? I love Pathfinder and I have been playing since 2E. Additionally love all of the rules-lite clones and run them when I can find a full group. Almost all of my friends play 3E of some type and they all seem to love the game. I don't find it "dumbed down" at all. In fact, I am not sure what that even means. Maybe because they got rid of situational modifiers for the disadvantage/advantage mechanic and rolled commonly taken feats into specializations? I happen to like those features. The few friends I have that enjoy playing rules-lite rpgs are coming back into the D&D fold after years away from it.

Shadow Lodge

Video looks pretty cool.

upworks.com link.

I like that you can remove the layers of the castle fairly easily by floors rather than piece by piece.

Shadow Lodge

Alan_Beven wrote:
Given the sales figures of 5e so far I think the pricing seems about right to me.

I suppose. However, if you look at their competition I think it is about $10 too high. That isn't a huge deal. I expected it to be about $39.99. There are definitely people who are refusing to buy it because of the price though and many more opting to not purchase it at their FLGS because of the price difference with Amazon.

Shadow Lodge

AnarianElf1085 wrote:

Most definitely sticking with Pathfinder. I've already invested hundreds of dollars (some were group funds) into the PF books and accessories.

I've looked at the D&D 5th ed rules, and while they look interesting, I can't see myself purchasing more than the PHB, if I find a DM I want to play under. To me, at least, it's too much of an investment to switch from a system that I already love back to D&D. And from what I've seen, there's no guarentee that they won't change to 6th Ed in another few years.

For those who can afford to change systems every few years, and haven't fallen in love with the PF system, or just those who would prefer D&D, good luck and may you have many good campaigns. I just can't afford that investment all over again.

This is the key argument I see...people are already too invested to switch. That makes sense. My entire pathfinder collection was lost when I moved along with some other stuff that makes me want to cry in a closet so I don't mind buying these new books.

I think it is a bit unfair to suggest that they would switch editions in a few years. 4E lasted 6-7 years? That exceeds my definition of a few. Pathfinder has been out for about 5 years right? Also, a 6-7 year tenure for a game that was hated by a huge chunk of the community is not bad. I guess you are referring to 3/3.5E. I would argue thought that many consumers wanted something new. There were things that were perceived as broken with the game. It just turned out that 4E wasn't what many of them wanted and they were willing to play a game they thought was broken over that particular edition.

Shadow Lodge

Congrats on a great Kickstarter! I can't wait to get my books!

Shadow Lodge

ShinHakkaider wrote:

Maybe this thread should be retitled "Yeah I was slumming it with Pathfinder but now that ACTUAL D&D is back I'm better now..."

I love how it seems like Deja vu from around 2007 or so when everyone was basically bashing and saying the same thing about 3.5 in preparation for 4E.

The more things change the more they say the same I guess.

Well I love Pathfinder. I plan on still being a customer and playing in games and I still run a game. I just will also play in 5E and run 5E games. It isn't a religion - you can pick more than one.

I completely disagree about 2007 Deja vu. It is so different this time around. No irritating build up, no secrecy as far as the design direction and no shock. When 4E came out there was an instant backlash. I remember watching the reviews pop up on Amazon - one bad review after another. That week the youtube reviews starting coming out and they were just hostile. The community instantly reacted poorly. I recall this because I was super worried about the fact that I had just dropped all of that cash on new books. I stuck it out for just under a year and abandoned it - but I knew it wasn't a good fit for me on the first game. This time around the reviews are overwhelmingly positive. Additionally, people have been testing it for over a year. This time around seems totally different.

Of course people have the same complaints about 3.5E that they did when waiting for 4E. They are REAL problems. They didn't go away. They just weren't as bad for some people as 4E was. I have heard those same issues about 3.5E discussed for the last 10 years or so. People wanted a new edition. A great many just didn't want 4E.

Shadow Lodge

Dennis Harry wrote:
Picked up the Players Guide. Bit disappointed with backgrounds. Gameplay seems good. I will be playing in a 5E pbp so I can test gameplay soon enough.

They are completely optional though. I didn't use their backgrounds for my character.

Shadow Lodge

My home brew campaign will stay Pathfinder, however, I am running a 5E game and playing in a 5E game. So far I have had a lot of fun in the 5E games.

Shadow Lodge

Bave wrote:
KaiserDM wrote:


Dumb down? Interesting verbiage, but some people do want the rules simplified, so YMMV.

A buddy of mine told me about a session he played over the weekend. Fights were generally very fast paced. The advantage/disadvantage system coupled with flater math made each turn go faster. I think he said the group was 7th level. I love PF, but to be frank, I dont think any system has ever had longer, more drug out combats than 3.X.

Can you expand on why you think combats would take longer in 5th?

The problem is with simplified you get undesirable side effects. The simpler a game system is the less variability you have in it. I could easily make a simple game with the rules on a 3x5 card, one class, one race, one mechanic. Great, but it's boring.

The problem I saw in 5th ED was that the damage was toned down heavily, the healing increased dramatically which leads to grinding battles.

Just to be clear...you are talking about 5E D&D right? Not some other game?

Shadow Lodge

Bave wrote:
The entire premise of 5th Ed seems to be to dumb it down, make combat take longer, and continue to bend the curve towards martials away from casters.

Have you played 5E or read it? I am curious because I didn't get this impression when I played or read it. Additionally, combat was very fast. I played in a game last night and the speed of the combat was one of the features that stood out to me. Additionally, 5E essentially just got rid of all of the various situational modifiers and replaced them with the disadvantage/advantage system - you call that dumbed-down but I find it elegant.

Bave wrote:


Who wants to play a game where there isn't any variable dynamics any more? Sure, it's easier, but then you lose so much of the flexibility and variability.

Not sure what you mean here. Class flexibility, combat flexibility, spell flexibility? You aren't saying anything specific here.

Shadow Lodge

Okay so I am in for $80 for hardcover + pdf of 5th edition foes and I added $40 for the Quests of Doom. Will I get the hardcover for QoD and a PDF?

Thanks!

Shadow Lodge

Mearls wrote:

The original tweet doesn't capture the full story - we're not working on an FRCS right now because we are putting the bandwidth available for such a project into thinking about how to do an FRCS.

If you think of how we created fifth edition, we probably put more time and effort into determining what it needed to be (playtest, etc.) than into actually writing the final product.

The DMG is also still in the works - we won't even consider engaging in our next big RPG project until that is out the door, everyone has taken a vacation, and we're ready to tackle another huge project.

This does not equal:

sunshadow21 wrote:
...they don't even have an idea of how to do a campaign guide for FR yet.

The PHB just came out. The MM is coming out soon. The DM guide is still in the works but coming out in November. When a new edition of D&D comes out does the campaign setting typically come out at the same time as the PHB? I don't remember it ever being like that. Also, I would imagine that putting together a campaign setting from already existing source material takes much less time than designing a new game. I think your statement is an overreaction.

Shadow Lodge

Up on eBay

Link

Shadow Lodge

I couldn't think of any American jokes about Americans - we need some! There are plenty of jokes about specific areas of America. I searched for some jokes about Americans but most of the ones I found were probably derived in another country. They were really funny though. I liked this one:

Quote:

An American was telling one of his favorite jokes to a group of friends. "Hell is a place where the cooks are British, the waiters are French, the policemen are Germans, and the trains are run by Italians."

The lone European in the group pondered all this for a second and responded, "I can't say about the police and the trains, but you're probably right about going out to eat. A restaurant in Hell would be one where the cooks are British and the waiters are French - and the customers are all Americans."

Shadow Lodge

zylphryx wrote:


How is it we are known for Nobel Laureates and lawnmower deaths???

I am a theorist - I don't know how to use a lawnmower.

Shadow Lodge

It all depends on the apocalypse.

Shadow Lodge

meatrace wrote:
At least that's your doctorate, this is just an undergraduate degree.

I knew plenty of people your age and much older as an undergrad and grad student. Don't let it bother you. Just laugh at the stupid young people.

Shadow Lodge

meatrace wrote:
Scythia wrote:
meatrace wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'm attending Arizona State University in my first semester as a transfer student, studying for a B.S. in Applied Computer Science.

I almost wish I was going there.

Just so I'd know there was someone else older than me.
I'm not worried about someone being older than me, I'm more bothered by so many of them being younger. :P
That was my point. I'm 32 and surrounded by teenagers. If TOZ were here with me I wouldn't be the only old guy.

That is pretty much how I felt. I finished my doctorate at 33.

Shadow Lodge

Writing in their journal/diary (since so many Pathfinder villains keep them *see ROTRL*).

Shadow Lodge

Are we doing this or what? I am free most weekends. So far I see

Pennywit
Asphere (me)
Gladior

Do we have a fourth? Also, any GMs? I am currently GMing another game so I would prefer to be a player.

Shadow Lodge

That doesn't annoy me at all (in regard to the OP). What annoys me is when they don't role play at all and constantly ask me (the GM) what they should do next. If they want to play Drizzt, Tass, or Luke Skywalker's motif I am just happy that they are role playing.

Shadow Lodge

Josh M. wrote:
Hama wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Hama wrote:
Asphere wrote:
Canceling the day of is unacceptable unless the circumstances warrant it. If they were fully aware that they wouldn't be able to attend in advance but decided to tell you the day of they are being extremely inconsiderate. I have dealt with players who did this in the past. My approach is to let them know individually that I found it rude and that if it happens again I will replace them in the group. That usually stops it.
What he said. Also, it absolutely doesn't matter if they are friends or not.
Are your players employees? "Doesn't matter if they are friends or not..." That sounds like a business decision, not a gaming one.

No, but i prefer my players not messing with me. Also, we can still be friends, we just don't game anymore. I take my gaming seriously, if other people don't, i don't see a reason of keeping them around for that particular activity.

@Tinkergoth

What Asphere meant is, i think, that you should mention replacing them, not replacing them for real.

Maybe I just don't have your passion. I just think that the players being friends matters dramatically, is all. If someone winds up being a real problem at the table, the problem will be dealt with. Calling off the day of the game? Not that big of a deal. Maybe I'm too tolerant. I just value the time spent with my friends more than I value a board game. YMMV.

You must be playing with people who have been your friends externally to the game for some time - your tolerance is more understandable if that is the case. The people I play with I have met through gaming. The ones I have now are my friends because they weren't inconsiderate jerks who repeatedly canceled on our group - we weeded those people out.

Also, the medium for the social activity may simply be a game, however, the preparations to GM it and host it equal time and in some cases money. Additionally, the GM and other players may have had opportunities to do something else the night of the game and are now left sitting at home without plans if the game falls through.

Shadow Lodge

Hama wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Hama wrote:
Asphere wrote:
Canceling the day of is unacceptable unless the circumstances warrant it. If they were fully aware that they wouldn't be able to attend in advance but decided to tell you the day of they are being extremely inconsiderate. I have dealt with players who did this in the past. My approach is to let them know individually that I found it rude and that if it happens again I will replace them in the group. That usually stops it.
What he said. Also, it absolutely doesn't matter if they are friends or not.
Are your players employees? "Doesn't matter if they are friends or not..." That sounds like a business decision, not a gaming one.

No, but i prefer my players not messing with me. Also, we can still be friends, we just don't game anymore. I take my gaming seriously, if other people don't, i don't see a reason of keeping them around for that particular activity.

@Tinkergoth

What Asphere meant is, i think, that you should mention replacing them, not replacing them for real.

Actually I meant replacing them using a hit man. There is a lake near my house that is full of the bodies of inconsiderate tabletop gamers :D

Shadow Lodge

Ellis Mirari wrote:
Josh M. wrote:
Hama wrote:
Asphere wrote:
Canceling the day of is unacceptable unless the circumstances warrant it. If they were fully aware that they wouldn't be able to attend in advance but decided to tell you the day of they are being extremely inconsiderate. I have dealt with players who did this in the past. My approach is to let them know individually that I found it rude and that if it happens again I will replace them in the group. That usually stops it.
What he said. Also, it absolutely doesn't matter if they are friends or not.
Are your players employees? "Doesn't matter if they are friends or not..." That sounds like a business decision, not a gaming one.

We're getting to differences in group structure again.

For some, gaming is run at stores where it may very much be a part of the GM's job there to prep for and run games. The players might also not be friends away from the table, or a few might be friends while others are simple customers. In that context, one should NOT show preferential treatment and give the friend loads of slack while the regular store goes get the shaft after a couple of cancellations.

I think that's what he meant.

Pretty much. Though I am not GMing in a store the structure is similar. I met my current group by throwing up an advert for players. I live in the DC area so there were lots of responses. We became friends through the regularly scheduled game.

Shadow Lodge

Josh M. wrote:
Asphere wrote:
Canceling the day of is unacceptable unless the circumstances warrant it. If they were fully aware that they wouldn't be able to attend in advance but decided to tell you the day of they are being extremely inconsiderate. I have dealt with players who did this in the past. My approach is to let them know individually that I found it rude and that if it happens again I will replace them in the group. That usually stops it.

To each their own, but to me this sounds very harsh. The only amount of notice I need is roughly before I head out the door to the game.

As for "replacing" players, do you have a waiting list of people ready to play? I find that kicking a friend out of a friendly social activity for missing two games to be a good way to wind up losing more friends eventually.

Well I am pretty flexible about which "circumstances warrant it". However, I have allotted my very limited time to planning the session as well as turned down other social activities so that I could be available to GM. If people aren't turning up for petty reasons and potentially ruining games I would look for people who are more reliable and get rid of those who consider the game to be "something to do if nothing better comes along".

Also, I have done this with friends and we are still friends. I just tell them that I am going to replace them with someone who wants to play more frequently and maybe they can play every now and then if someone is unable to make it or I think and extra player works for that session. Typically players who are flaky aren't really devastated by losing their permanent spot.

Shadow Lodge

Canceling the day of is unacceptable unless the circumstances warrant it. If they were fully aware that they wouldn't be able to attend in advance but decided to tell you the day of they are being extremely inconsiderate. I have dealt with players who did this in the past. My approach is to let them know individually that I found it rude and that if it happens again I will replace them in the group. That usually stops it.

Shadow Lodge

Well I am in for $300. This one seems better for GMs with all of the monsters and evil NPCs.

Shadow Lodge

I just gradumatated from college. I finally finished my PhD and was forced naked and alone into the real world. It is terrifying. They expect results in the real world!

Shadow Lodge

I would like to play a Magus.

Shadow Lodge

Justin Rocket wrote:
Quote:

31 USC § 1341 - Limitations on expending and obligating amounts

(1) An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not—
(A) make or authorize an expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation or fund for the expenditure or obligation;

A poster asserted in a different thread that if the US Government makes or authorizes an obligation or expenditure for which funds don't exist, then an appropriation or funds must later be made available.

That seems to be wrong.

As per the law referenced above, the government cannnot make or authorize an obligation or expenditure until -after- the appropriation or funds are available.

In other words, it is illegal to pass a law which creates an obligation on the part of the US government until _after_ the funds/appropriation for those funds already exists.

If it is me you are referring to than I apologize for asserting that. It wasn't what I meant. You were implying that the PPACA was part of the resolution that failed Monday. We were trying to tell you that it wasn't and I mentioned that this move was unprecedented and was not a failure on the Democrats part to not negotiate. From your posts you seem to believe that the PPACA was funded through the resolution and that the house was simply removing it. I said that what the GOP was doing was unprecedented, meaning to make it clear that laws have not been defunded prior to implementation on financial resolutions that they are not part of. Looking back at it what I said was much more muddled.

Shadow Lodge

I am in Silver Spring, MD. I am down to play anything. I don't want to GM (already doing that with another group).

Shadow Lodge

I can play on the weekend. Are you near the metro? Where are you?

Shadow Lodge

thunderspirit wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:
Asphere wrote:
It has to be funded until it is repealed.
What administrative law states that? I'd like to read it.
I've got Justin Rocket's back on this (and only this) point: unfunded mandates exist all over Federal law (No Child Left Behind, as merely one example). There's nothing at all that says appropriations have to be made for law enactment. It's a well-rehearsed tactic, even if if it completely circumvents the legislative process.

Can you give an example of one that was defunded before it was implemented and failed?

Shadow Lodge

Bondoid wrote:
Asphere wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:
As for stopping the government, the Democrats could have accepted any of the Republican proposals and kept the government running.
You're not even reading this thread, are you? :P
I'm reading it. Some people aren't acknowledging that the Democrats could have accepted the Republican budget and kept the government running. Oh sure, they would have felt that they just handed over a baby to be dropped in a blender, but the Republicans would have felt the same way if they accepted the Democrat budget.
Congress already passed the PPACA. It has to be funded until it is repealed. Laws cannot be repealed by refusing to sign funding bills. Additionally, concessions and negotiations were already made 3 years ago to such an extent that Obama is criticized heavily for compromising too much with conservatives. I am sorry but you clearly just do not understand what is going on here.

This is completely wrong.

The Anti-Deficiency Act of 1984 allows congress to kill government programs by not funding them.

It also makes it illegal for the Executive branch to continue government programs that have been de-funded.

Yes government programs whose cost exceeds what is available in appropriations or funds. The PPACA is funded through its own tax.

Shadow Lodge

Justin Rocket wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:
As for stopping the government, the Democrats could have accepted any of the Republican proposals and kept the government running.
You're not even reading this thread, are you? :P
I'm reading it. Some people aren't acknowledging that the Democrats could have accepted the Republican budget and kept the government running. Oh sure, they would have felt that they just handed over a baby to be dropped in a blender, but the Republicans would have felt the same way if they accepted the Democrat budget.

Congress already passed the PPACA. It has to be funded until it is repealed. Laws cannot be repealed by refusing to sign funding bills. Additionally, concessions and negotiations were already made 3 years ago to such an extent that Obama is criticized heavily for compromising too much with conservatives. I am sorry but you clearly just do not understand what is going on here.

Shadow Lodge

Justin Rocket wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


That strikes me as problematic. You need to start backing horses with a chance.

That strikes me as problematic. As long as people vote for politicians who "have a chance" because they are backed by the DNC and RNC, our country won't have a chance because the DNC and RNC are killing us.

Quote:


Based on what, exactly?

Actual facts say otherwise. Darned facts.

what actual evidence are you pointing to?

the current failure of federal government came about because our government overreached and got too big. Your represenatives are people who have no experience living like you.

So do you support creating a new legislative mechanism to repeal laws by attaching provisions to funding bills that defund what was democratically agreed upon? Regardless of how you feel about the PPACA - doesn't that strike you as undemocratic and a step in the wrong direction for your big picture goals discussed above? Imagine if it worked. The democrats will use it on the republicans. It would be chaos.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Rocket wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:
ACA is a component of funding. It cannot be considered totally unrelated to funding.

EVERYTHING THE GOVERNMENT DOES is "related" to funding...see my remark above about the Bush tax cuts.

Extortion, plain and simple. Thankfully, it is almost guaranteed to backfire.

When the person you are negotiating with doesn't cooperate, that's not extortion. it is failure on your part (and maybe the other person's part) to negotiate.

They weren't negotiating on the PPAC. It was enacted 3 years ago and became law. It has to be funded unless it can be repealed. That is the process. What is happening now, to my knowledge, has never happened before. It is a political pathway that bypasses the democratic process. It cannot be allowed to work regardless of what it is about.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Justin Rocket wrote:
Asphere wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:
Stebehil wrote:

No, the folks are sent home and don´t get any money for that time. Gotta pay some bills? Too bad, thats what you get for working for the gov´t - that what some right-wing nuts would say, I guess.

And what the left-wing nuts would say as well.

I am not sure I follow this whole "both parties are to blame" rhetoric. The PPACA was enacted by congress after much compromise from both parties. The current spending bill has nothing to do with the PPACA other than the fact that some conservatives have used it as a hostage to defund the PPACA.

Friday, 9/20/13 - The House of Representatives passed a Continuing Resolution that would fully fund the government (including things that Republicans don't like) while at the same time defunding Obamacare.

Result: House Republicans compromised on spending that we'd like to see cut in exchange for defunding Obamacare.

Friday, 9/27/13 - The Senate stripped the defunding language out of the House passed Continuing Resolution and sent it back to the House.
Result: Harry Reid and Senate Democrats refused to compromise.

Saturday, 9/28/13 - The House of Representatives added two amendments to the Senate revised Continuing Resolution to delay Obamacare for one year (far from what we were originally willing to agree to) and repeal the medical device tax.
Result: House Republicans compromised away from defunding to delaying Obamacare for one year.

Monday, 9/30/13 - The Senate stripped the two amendments from the House passed Continuing Resolution and sent it back to the House.
Result: Harry Reid and Senate Democrats refuse to compromise one inch on Obamacare.

It looks to me like the responsibility for the failure to reach a solution fell on both parties.

But the PPACA was already enacted by both chambers of congress 3 years ago after heavy compromise from the left. There is a legislative process to challenge established laws - the Republicans have failed 41 times (I think?) to repeal the PPACA via this process. The next step would be to win future elections and to continue to challenge it.

The PPACA was not part of the spending bill. The spending bill is being used as a last attempt to stop the PPACA through unprecedented strategy based on extortion.

1 to 50 of 681 << 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.