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

Caineach's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. 6,118 posts (6,123 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


1 to 50 of 714 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Plausible Pseudonym wrote:
This article by a sort of liberal-ish libertarian, extremely pro-LGBT, decidedly anti-Trump psychiatrist who has patients expressing Trump-related suicidal ideations, is a very long but very, very good antidote to a lot of Trump fear, for those of you who might benefit from it.
The man chose white supremacists for top positions in his government. No, people are not crying wolf.
They aren't white supremacists, any more than 90% of Japanese are Japanese supremacists or most Israelis are Jewish supremacists. (Or maybe they all are!) If anything, Bannon, like most of these guys, is an Asian supremacist. (I'm referring here to his CEO comments.)

When Glenn Beck calls someone racist I'm pretty confident in calling them one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crusinos wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

To get back to the Republic:

The most important question is 'HOW do we fix this admittedly broken system?' not 'WHO is at fault for the broken system?'

Bring back jobs, first and foremost.

Seriously, that right there will probably fix most of it. Get incomes growing and people employed. I don't care about race, sexual preference, gender, or anything like that. Just get them working.

As long as people have no hope, as long as they have no reason to feel represented or that things can improve, they're not going to vote or they're going to protest vote. At least some of the people who voted for Trump did so purely on a "take everyone with me" basis.

Once the people are working again, then focus on other things. You can even focus on it entirely from the focus of improving productivity, as I will now demonstrate.

Do they need healthcare? Great! National healthcare system would work wonders and solve all of the problems with the ACA. And have it run by the feds, not the states. If people want to opt out, let them. If they have the money to afford it, no reason to stop them.

People want to marry the same sex? Shouldn't that create jobs in the marriage industries? Let them! Letting them be happy is less stress on the mental health side of the healthcare system. Lower costs.

People are trans? Well, solving problems they have will mean lower medical costs in the long term. So, solve away!

Women having trouble? There's at least half our workforce with a problem. Solve it! Easy access to abortions and birth control also means they will have less stress about potential pregnancies, which in turn helps them be happy. Easy access to abortions and birth control also means they will have less stress about potential pregnancies, which in turn helps them be happy. Happier workers are more productive workers.

Men having trouble? That's at least half our workforce with a problem. Solve it! Curing the insanely high rate of depression among men alone would be...

So your proposal for solutions is to put in power the party that did everything they could to fight all the things you want?


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
It's as much hyperbole as the doomsday cries about Obama the last 2 cycles and Bush the 2 before that.

No. There is a difference.

Republicans were complaining about things Obama never said.
Democrats are complaining about things Trump has promised.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
markofbane wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:


Just a Clinton win = Four more years of gridlock.

Two years. A third of the Senate and all of the House are up for election in 2018.

Republicans will likely retake the Senate in 2018. House wont change until districts are redrawn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
atheral wrote:
Started the new season of RWBY and, wow, they really stepped up their game with the quality this time around.

I haven't decided if I like it more yet. I find it drifts closer to uncanny valley for me, where the things that are off seem more pronounced. I heard it takes them something like 40 minutes per frame to render.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
The thing with Hillary is setting precedent I guess so hopefully they are both punished for their actions.
No, Colin Powell set the precedent when he was Secretary of State. She did not do anything that her predecessors hadn't already done.

Last I checked, Colin Powell NEVER PUT CLASSIFIED information on his private server.

Clinton did.

That was NOT a precedence Powell set...EVER, as far as I know.

That is solely on Clinton's ignorance.

Just to clarify, if putting classified information on a private server was a precedence that Powell set, Clinton could NOT CLAIM IGNORANCE nor INNOCENCE of intent...as she would have had the intent to do as he had done with precedence.

However...that was obviously NOT what came up. Therefore, as per the idea of intent, she never intentionally put classified on her emails (as per what she claims) in that light, which is where the issue of her innocence lies (if one believes that intent is required or even matters...this is the first time I've ever heard of someone getting off based on whether they intended to disclose classified or not in all honesty). I don't think Powell ever instructed her about classified information and this is how she utilized it on the private server. If she had done that with the intent that she was copying that idea...that would have been included in regards to her Intent.

Last I checked, the REASON it was stated that Clinton was not charged was because she did not have INTENT...which was what was necessary if they were going to charge her with infractions of placing classified on an uncleared server. It is her IGNORANCE of the fact or her claim of such that meant that she would not be charged.

We have no idea if Powell had classified emails because they were never combed in excruciating detail by a 3rd party. It took experts ridiculous man hours to search through Hillary's emails, and in the end all they found a handful of things inappropriately classified before getting to her and some things that were later classified after the fact. In fact, in the FBI director's testimony, he admits that, because of the way things sent to her were labeled, an expert on the classification system would have no reason to believe any of the emails were classified without additional knowledge of the specific programs being discussed. Combine that with a formal disagreement between the State Department and FBI about what level of detail constitutes classified information (Drone program FBI says all emails are classified and State Department says general plan emails are not, IIRC), which accounts for many of the after the fact reclassifications, and there would be no case.

Not only can you not make the case that she knowingly intended to remove classified information, you can't even make the case that she knew she had removed classified information in the first place. That's not even including the perfectly valid arguments she can make about not understanding the technology well enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Donna Brazile used her position as a CNN correspondent to leak primary debate questions to Clinton camp.

I wonder how many people will click through to realize it was during the primary and no one will care.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrusaderWolf wrote:

4%? In a presidential? Assuming 200 million registered voters (a benchmark I believe we just reached a week ago) that would be a mere 8 million votes cast. 2012 saw almost 127 million votes cast for President.

I assume you mistyped, but I'm not sure what you meant to say.

EDIT: Unless you meant that 4% of voters are swing votes, in which case my bad for misunderstanding.

I think he was referring to people in swing states, but he wasn't particularly clear


4 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I think you lost me here on your logic.

I discussed how I like Tim Kaine and his overall reasonability. You then talk about pre-emptive surrender.

The closest I came to was talking about how I think Kaine may be able to build the bridges that have been burned in the past few years and make it so we have something that resembles a working congress rather than the shambles we have now where they won't even get a Justice selected to the SC.

I'm not sure how that is interpreted as automatic preemptive surrender.

Working together and cooperating is FAR different than surrender. It's that type of mindset that one is surrendering if they work with others is exactly the type of vitriol that has caused the caustic situation in the US government in the first place.

Because all the bridges were burned by Republicans, so any overture by Democrats to build new bridges is giving in to the Republican tantrum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fukishima survived the earthquake and had its failsafes activating properly. It did not survive the Tsunami, which took out backup power. Most of the world doesn't have to deal with those.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
It seems to me the Tea Party and the Sanders/OWS people actually have a lot in common on some issues; the party would be looking to capitalize on that. Republicans - 1/3 of the voters + the independents/superleft Democrats = possible win, if you sold it well.

I'd say the Tea Party and OWS do, not so certain about Sanders supporters.

I see the same thing in many ways. The both see that there is a lack of well paying jobs for those who are not upper middle class to upper class.

They both want to have meaningful wages and jobs BACK in the US rather than in other nations.

They both want the Wall Street Types to keep their companies (and hence jobs) in the US rather than exporting them to other nations and manufacturing things there.

They both think the upper echelons are corrupt.

I was surprised that we didn't see a strange alliance between the two when the OWS movement was particularly large and the cops were trying to disband them.

Ironically, instead, we saw a lot of the Tea Party encouraging the cops...rather than seeing that there was a LOT in common between the two.

I'm not surprised at all. As I said above, that anger at corporate elites is the only thing the Tea Party and OWS have in common. And in the Tea Party, it's largely been co-opted by anger at government.

The solutions they want are vastly different. OWS was for government support in many cases, safety net, WS regulation and breakup, housing market, etc. TP is against all that - wants the government out, let the banks fail etc.

And of course the Tea Party is largely rural and white, while OWS is urban and colored. Two different worlds. Anger driven by many of the same sources, but completely different responses.

I think if early Tea Party met OWS they would have gotten along decently well. There was definitely a point before the crazy dominated the tea party that they could have at least realized they could be friends. A lot of people I know who supported the Tea Party early and fled also supported OWS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
Plus the obvious power source on the back made me wonder why Cage didn't crush it.
A lot of what I find wrong with this show seems to stem from the way they wrote Luke Cage as a very low INT character. Either low INT or clinically depressed or pathologically mellow (did I miss a show where they show him suck back five joints in a row? because that's how he seems to act the entire season...)

I think you were watching a different show than me


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is important to register all possible domain names
votefortrumppence.com


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cards Against Humanity creators take billboard add accusing Trump of being a Hanzo Main


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Caineach wrote:

There are solar panels that can produce energy off moonlight. Assuming you only get 8 hours of energy and nothing the rest of the day is a false assumption. 8 hours at full efficiency means these would produce only 2.1kWH/day.

A normal system of static south facing solar panels angled for your latitude will produce at least 4kWH/day (using the s~!*ty values for New England, much of the country can get 6), so a 15m^2 will hit your values in some of the worst area for solar in the country, with significantly cheaper and less efficient solar panels. The roof on my house, south facing, is 100m^2, and could fit 6 of these systems. Admittedly, the house is an unusually long raised ranch with a south facing entryway, but it is only an average size middle class home overall. Trees are the only reason for not having a system on it.

Moonlight doesn't deliver anywhere near the energy to ground that sunlight does... and that's assuming a full moon which is generally only three nights of the month. And there's the half of the month when there is no moonlight at all at night. So right off the bat, you're not going to get a usable amount of energy from lunar light alone.

Right, but my point isn't based off that, so I have no idea why you are picking that apart and implying my argument is somehow false.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I said it before, and I'll say it now. I don't see what's so bad about Hillary Clinton.

Depends on who you ask. She supports a No Fly No Buy type of infringement upon average American rights, she supports (publicly, though who knows about privately) single payer healthcare (which is good or bad, depending on what you value), she's a well documented liar (this in no way makes her different from a vast majority of politicians, but it in no way excuses the behavior), and where Bernie (who I am in no way endorsing by this, as I didn't support his candidacy) gave very specific details regarding how he planned on paying for his grandiose promises, Hillary does not.

Reminder: this was written to address the question of why people don't like Hillary, not why she may or may not be better or worse than someone else.

Hillary has released some of the most comprehensive policy documentation by any candidate every, and had it evaluated by federal agencies to make sure it made sense. To say that she has no specific details is a blatant lie.
I didn't say that she has no specific details, so no, I didn't lie. What I said is that she was not as detailed as Bernie. I just went over several sections of her "on the issues" page of her campaign website (specifically the "making the rich pay their fair share" and "debt-free college" sections) and they were relatively vague. Most of the sections where she discussed the implementations of her plans simply stated that she would be closing "tax loopholes" (only three specific instances were mentioned and only in the "making the rich pay their fair share" part) and even then there wasn't any comprehensive or detailed solution to the proposed issue.
Hillary's policy proposals during the primary were leagues more detailed than anything Bernie put out. The detailed documents were mostly ignored by media, because
...

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/

I'm having issues viewing the page in proper format, like I'm getting a cached version, but my god is there detailed, bulleted lists of dozens of policy proposals.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I said it before, and I'll say it now. I don't see what's so bad about Hillary Clinton.

Depends on who you ask. She supports a No Fly No Buy type of infringement upon average American rights, she supports (publicly, though who knows about privately) single payer healthcare (which is good or bad, depending on what you value), she's a well documented liar (this in no way makes her different from a vast majority of politicians, but it in no way excuses the behavior), and where Bernie (who I am in no way endorsing by this, as I didn't support his candidacy) gave very specific details regarding how he planned on paying for his grandiose promises, Hillary does not.

Reminder: this was written to address the question of why people don't like Hillary, not why she may or may not be better or worse than someone else.

Hillary has released some of the most comprehensive policy documentation by any candidate every, and had it evaluated by federal agencies to make sure it made sense. To say that she has no specific details is a blatant lie.
I didn't say that she has no specific details, so no, I didn't lie. What I said is that she was not as detailed as Bernie. I just went over several sections of her "on the issues" page of her campaign website (specifically the "making the rich pay their fair share" and "debt-free college" sections) and they were relatively vague. Most of the sections where she discussed the implementations of her plans simply stated that she would be closing "tax loopholes" (only three specific instances were mentioned and only in the "making the rich pay their fair share" part) and even then there wasn't any comprehensive or detailed solution to the proposed issue.

Hillary's policy proposals during the primary were leagues more detailed than anything Bernie put out. The detailed documents were mostly ignored by media, because Trump was causing a new scandal.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
I said it before, and I'll say it now. I don't see what's so bad about Hillary Clinton.

Depends on who you ask. She supports a No Fly No Buy type of infringement upon average American rights, she supports (publicly, though who knows about privately) single payer healthcare (which is good or bad, depending on what you value), she's a well documented liar (this in no way makes her different from a vast majority of politicians, but it in no way excuses the behavior), and where Bernie (who I am in no way endorsing by this, as I didn't support his candidacy) gave very specific details regarding how he planned on paying for his grandiose promises, Hillary does not.

Reminder: this was written to address the question of why people don't like Hillary, not why she may or may not be better or worse than someone else.

Hillary has released some of the most comprehensive policy documentation by any candidate every, and had it evaluated by federal agencies to make sure it made sense. To say that she has no specific details is a blatant lie.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:

What is with Trump and the sniffles. Has he been sounding sick at any point between last election and this one?

Stephen Colbert keeps making jokes about Donald being on coke. I am not totally convinced it is a joke.

Actually, that would explain a lot about Trump.

...hmm...

***go-go-gadget google***

Ok, there could be some other possibilities.

Carry Fisher, when asked if it was coke

"I'm and expert, & ABSOLUTELY"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Only winners get reprieve from hurricanes. Pretty sure Trump will say its your fault for living there.

God I hope it hits his golf course hard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MeriDoc- wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
I don't see any reason to think the Republicans would suddenly grow a spine AFTER Trump got elected. The vast majority of them have been all to happy to roll over for him since he's got the nod.
Trump won the nomination, what do you expect would happen. It wouldn't even take a majority of (R) senators to remove him. Just enough to hit 2/3 with the democrat voting bloc.

You are dreaming if you think they would ever admit their party made that huge a mistake.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShinHakkaider wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
I too like the realistic villains we have gotten so far. They are scarier than anything I have seen in a comic so far.
Killgrave and the Kingpin in particular. Kingpin being somewhat sympathetic and Killgrave being an almost complete sociopath. Didnt really care for Diamondback's motivation and really kinda liked both Cottonmouth and Shades. Black Mariah was a nice evolution though and I'd venture to say that the women in the show are waaaaay more fleshed out than the men. I found my self understanding and associating more with Misty Knight than Luke Cage. I love the slow build of Black Mariah and Shades almost parasitic relationship.

I agree with this quite a bit. I particularly loved Shades, and am still wondering if he got anything lasting out of the experimentation.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Bill Clinton's infidelities have zero to do with Hillary Clinton's fitness to be president. I really couldn't care less.

My thought was that it could. For it certainly shows her willingness to put up with anything for a chance at power.

David Gergen had some well thought out and fair opinions on her relationship to power from his time in the White House in the 90's. See for example his fairly recent thoughts on the Clinton Emails.

I'm sorry, but choosing to stay with a husband who has cheated on you is not a power grab. That accusation is heinous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Interesting, because I felt the opposite. I felt that we saw way more of what and who these characters are than pretty much any other fantasy series I can think of. They had minor hobbies that were shown on screen. They had things they did for fun. They didn't dwell on them and make them the sole focus of the character, which I found very refreshing.

I agree that those were there; I just don't think that that made the actual story very interesting or engaging to watch. Knowing that Moguzo liked to whittle, for instance, did little to make me want to know what was going to happen next; characterization works best (to my mind) when it's mingled with the plot - this felt like it was trying to use it to replace the plot.

But I'm not surprised that you and I don't see eye-to-eye on this; this is far from the first time that you and I have had very different takes on things.

I didn't really care what was going to happen next from a plot perspective. Then again, I think plot is overrated. This story isn't about its plot, which is a toned down version of tons of similar stories, and I think by dropping the plot focus they were able to tell a very different story than we usually see.

This story is about focusing on the characters, their interactions, and watching them grow, which I think it handles very well. From describing why characters level up the way they do to actually changing their models throughout the show, to the very subtle movements they make in combat, not all of which they point out, we get to see way more depth of the character than almost any other show I can think of. And the fact that we aren't beaten over the head with it just adds icing for me.

The fact that I describe this show as a slice of life fantasy anime both boggles my mind and makes me want more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gotta say, I love Trump's campaign surrogates saying the media needs to focus on the issues and things people care instead of what is being talked about, when they are talking about what Trump said the night before.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

RE: Trump congratulates himself for NOT bringing up Bill Clinton's affairs. Then literally tells everyone else to do it for him.

Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.

Trump and his advisor buddies Ailes, Gingrich, and Giuliani are all on their third marriage each, and have all cheated on their previous wives, sometimes with more than one mistress. Trump will make public displays at having some spirituality or religious connection to curry votes, but it's obvious to anyone paying attention how paper-thin his religious veneer is.

(Hillary) Clinton has remained married to the same first husband for 40+ years, stuck with it and worked through the problems, and has never committed adultery. While private about her spirituality, she has spoken eloquently and with great detail about how her Methodism shapes her thinking and life.

Out of all the points of attack Trump's Campaign could pick, this is perhaps the strategically dumbest, and that says a lot for a campaign filled with poorly-conceived, poorly-planned and poorly-executed ideas. This is the Custer's Last Stand of October Surprises, except that Trump is building the trap that will snare him. This is so tactically unsound, it alone should make any Trump supporter reconsider just how rashly-impulsive, thin-skinned, and totally unsuited Trump is to have control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and vast military.

But my black heart is eager to watch Trump do it. He's going to have to gnaw a leg off to escape this snare.

Sadly, in our society is less acceptable for a woman to be cheated on than for a man to cheat on his wife.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:


3rd parties are totally viable as dozens of foreign countries have already proven. Enough with the fear-mongering because all these parties trying to do is prop up this broken binary party system.

These two establishment parties are just trying to lock people into believing that if you don't cast a vote for the big two that your somehow wasting your vote or empowering the "other party".

Standard fear mongering rhetoric that ensures nothing changes and power stays exactly where its at (with the big 2 parties). It's a broken system that only exists to maintain the status quo of existing power.

The only way to beat the game is not to play it. And don't try and say these two candidates aren't the establishment status quo.

Other countries have different voting systems allowing 3rd parties to be viable. We have a strict runnoff, which means that it is always in your interest to have as few ideologically similar candidates as possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:
I didn't think that the characters were uninteresting. I just think that their presentation was far too limited, and so made the narrative uninteresting. There was clearly more to those characters, and we were continually denied anything more than the occasional glimpse, which I found frustrating.

Interesting, because I felt the opposite. I felt that we saw way more of what and who these characters are than pretty much any other fantasy series I can think of. They had minor hobbies that were shown on screen. They had things they did for fun. They didn't dwell on them and make them the sole focus of the character, which I found very refreshing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I found them to be pretty clear anime cliche characters, unless there's some major character development they go into in the last 5 episodes (which, to be fair, is distressingly common for these one cour shows. They like to dump everything interesting at the end).

The only one who seemed to have "hidden depths" was the black mage and her obvious set-up for depressing rape or abuse backstory.

Funny, I thought she was most stereotypical, but liked the way they slowly developed her. I didn't get the vibe you are describing at all, mostly because she fit so neatly into the typical can't talk to men trope, which I have seen used very frequently and almost never because of some dark and tragic backstory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I finished it last night, and I just have to say, Sundakan and Alzrius, that your criticisms about the series are the reasons I fell in love with it. I disagree that the characters aren't interesting. I find them much more so than most series, because they actually seem like real people.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Caineach wrote:
We are one of the only industrialized countries with rising infant mortality last I checked.
Indeed, because we are willing to code riskier and riskier cases as live-birth every year.

No. If that were true, the maternal death rate wouldn't also be increasing, like it is in Texas.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CrusaderWolf wrote:

I'm not an expert on US medical infrastructure by any stretch, but I think a lot of the difficulties of Obamacare are it trying to work around the medical insurance industry. Unpopular aspects like the insurance mandate are *required* in order to pay for popular aspects like abolishing lifetime caps or preventing insurance companies from dropping those with preconditions. That's one simplified example, but the ACA would have been dead in the water if it didn't bend over backwards to keep the medical insurance industry profitable.

With a little luck and a lot of lobbying we might be able to reform the ACA closer and closer to genuine single-payer.

One of the major problems is a law that prevents the US government from negotiating drug prices. This allows companies to inflate the price drastically and the Medicare system has no way of pushing back. Regular insurance companies then get to negotiate lower prices, but since that is privately negotiated there is no transparency on how much taxpayers are getting ripped off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hillary has proposed a financial transaction tax. It's less aggressive than the one Bernie proposed, but still significant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
In contrast, the EU regulations of import of duck eggs is at some thousand pages of text. It is difficult to claim that the markets of today are ANYWHERE near free markets.
Near as I can tell, that's a myth. Due you have a source.

Snopes mentions duck eggs in France being a common variation of a debunked cabbage memo word count that apparently dates back to the 40s.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

The worst situation I heard of in Sweden was an epileptic who had had a seizure unnoticed by anyone while out on town. He was postictal, which is a difficult situation due to poor inhibition, swaying, aggressiveness. A group of cops found him like that. They assumed he was a junkie and proceeded to beat the living daylights out of him.

Generally, when I have tried to talk to policemen about the importance of showing restraint in using violence even if someone is not instantly complying... they do not even understand the question. They say "oh, that is no problem. If that happens, I just evaluate the risk of the situation and apply the correct amount of force."

We send the police out there because we want to keep people safe. We want a better result than sending out soldiers to kill everyone who does something suspicious. To do their job, the policemen need to be human and have a sense of empathy. It isn't all an equation about the level of risk. And if risk needs to be taken, the policemen are who we pay to take those risks. Safety is NOT job one for a cop. If we do not pay them enough, then that needs to be addressed, but that is another discussion.

If only our police force were held to the same standards as our soldiers in war zones. There would be so many court martials.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GeraintElberion wrote:

I am fluent in British English.

I don't get it.

Giving/flipping someone "the bird" is slang for sticking your middle finger up at them, a derogetory gesture for f**k you/off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
As for the price reductions in solar - the price has dropped so precipitously, somewhat from failing to include the installation costs (as whew said), but more so from failing to include the various government subsidies. Government subsidies is real money spent too and needs to be accounted for. In addition there is the maintenance and replacement costs to solar that I don't see factored in either.

You realize US government subsidized coal and natural gas more than solar and wind, right?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
You're bringing up his race as if it's inherently relevant to the issue being discussed. While that's probably true for some small segment of the group, I argue that it's by no means the dominant cause. The reason for the spike in gun buying was due to a combination of him being a DEMOCRAT (which is way more relevant to the people prone to hoarding firearms than his race) and the massively increased spotlight on guns in public discourse.

What "massively increased spotlight on guns in public discourse"? At least for the first spike in 2008.

There wasn't really much public discourse about it until after Newton.

Except for people in the gun community/business panicking over a Democrat taking guns. Obama certainly didn't focus on it.

Virginia Tech happened 5 years before Newtown, Fort Hood was 3 years before, and the Gabby Giffords shooting in Tucson was the year before, each of which put a pretty heavy spotlight on fun ownership in news broadcasts and in public discourse. I didn't say that Obama focused on it, but rather that the people who ended up causing the spike in gun sales (meaning the people doing the panic-buying) were afraid that he would. Whether or not the fear was well founded is irrelevant and an entirely separate issue (it clearly wasn't).

Yes, but the people doing the panic buying were also the ones who believed Obama to be a secret muslim who wasn't born in the US and thus couldn't legitimately serve as president. I myself am a gun owner, and cannot accept that there's a not-to-one correlation between gun owners and racist. I absolutely don't.

However, we're living in a time when the Republican candidate for president waited until last f**king week to state that he didn't believe the birther conspiracy. I don't see how you can deny Obama's race being a factor in any criticism of him at this point.

That reads like I'm saying you can't disagree with his policies...

I would just like to point out, Trump has now said the only reason he gave up the birther conspiracy was because he was tired of the questions interrupting his campaign message source


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:

I watched it a while back, up to about episode 8.

I found it pretty boring, and laughably predictable myself.

** spoiler omitted **

I have enjoyed a lot slower series than this. I mean, I love Hanbei Renmei and I think the most action that series has is a bike falling over.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Greylurker wrote:
Well the new deal betweeen Crunchyroll and Funimation has given CRunchy access to Grimgar of Fantasy and Ash. If you have not seen this wonderful series you should. It is a great portrayal of starting adventurers in a fantasy world.

I've started it and thoroughly enjoy it


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Hitdice wrote:

"Thrown around" is a very fair description of how I heard it used. As I said in my earlier post, the analysts on the news outlets I follow didn't conflate the two. I certainly didn't hear it used often enough to say that the Clinton campaign used accusations of sexism to gain voter sympathy.

I wouldn't categorize it as a ploy for sympathy, rather an attempt to dismiss a surging opposition to the nomination. It was a way of saying "these young voters don't know this issues, they're just uninformed misogynists that can't stand the idea of a woman president" and had it ended there it would have been laughable, sad but otherwise not particularly noteworthy. The term was used by the Atlantic, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the Los Angeles Times to name a few. I don't have a problem calling out trolls, but when you attach a candidates name to the term, suggest that they represent typical Sanders supporters, well then we have a problem. I don't doubt for a second that someone was making crude and sexist comments to Clinton and her supporters, you can just look at the typical YouTube comments section to realize what people are capable of, but then to lay that toxicity on another candidate, well that's dirty politics.

Now as to the point about Sanders supports being frustrated by the media, the majority of the press around Sanders was negative, but that's hardly surprising, most of the media is owned by very wealthy individuals who would have payed considerably more under a Sanders tax plan. So is it then surprising that the Sanders supporters objected to the negative press?

Every single news source I paid attention to started using Berniebro as a synonym for Bernie supporter. It was really amusing watching Bernie win some of the most ethnically diverse states in the country and have the commentary that night be how he only wins young white men.
Which "news sources" were those exactly? If every single "news...

I saw it on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, NBC, ABC, Huffington Post...

As for diverse states, Hawaii, Alaska, and Washington are 3 of the top 10 most diverse states in the country. The night he won 2 of them by huge margins was filled with how he only does well among whites. CCN called Hawaii "one of the whitest states of the country" while at the same time espousing the diversity of Wisconsin, one of the actual whitest states.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump has said he would nuke the Middle East, bring back torture (in a big way), advocates killing innocent people in order to punish terrorists, and just recently said if he was in charge he would have fired on Iranian boats but you're worried about Clinton.
To be clear, I'm not worried about Clinton, I'm uninspired by her. I'm complaining that I don't think she's got the interests of the average American at heart. Make no mistake, if Trump is at all earnest about any of his claims he'll become one of history's greatest monsters, but do you think 8 years of Clinton will get us Bernie Sanders type of politician? Or will the DNC pull the same strings to get another status quo politician? What makes me upset is having a leader that we have to fight, tooth and nail, to take progressive stances that would benefit the majority of Americans, and our only incentive to vote for her is a presidential monster of cartoonish levels.
I think with Clinton we get someone who has fought harder for "Bernie Sanders type of politics" and with more success than Bernie Sanders.

I've got a bridge to sell you


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
That's no reason to hope someone will win an election.
My point is that it's no reason to vote for Clinton. Trump is a disaster but Clinton has to win people's votes, you can't just run on the "I'm not Trump" ticket. There are two other people on that ticket and one, Jill Stein, is better on the environment.

This is actually a really good point people keep forgetting. Kerry ran on an anyone but Bush platform and lost against a hugely disliked candidate. He only had reasons to vote against Bush, but didn't actually advertise the reasons to vote for him. I see Clinton followers making a lot of the same mistakes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I recommend Asian black teas, as I find them much milder and balanced, but they are much harder to find unless you get a place that sells good loose leaf.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Fergie wrote:
But when you have the neolibs saying that there is no problem, someone acknowledging the problem is at least past the denial phase.
I'm sorry, but the entire left wing is currently based on the idea that there is currently multiple massive problems. You are literally quoting the corporate right and attributing it to the left.
Is there a difference between the corporate right and the corporate left?

You can look at net neutrality as an example - with the Democrats supporting the content providers and the Republicans supporting the service providers.

Or the solar energy industry v. the coal industry. (Or global warming.)

All sorts of economic related issues with semi-arbitrary splits on which party is affiliated with which side, though Republicans tend to be consistently on whichever side would be worse for the environment and/or the public =P

Well both seem to be married to the oil industry, fracking for example, and while the democratic platform gives lip service to being against it, they didn't actually suggest banning it. Factor in that Ken Salazar has been named to lead Hilary's transition team, a man that's not only pro fracking but also green lit a number of off shore drilling operations when he was Secretary of the Interior, and you have to wonder exactly what the difference between a typical republican government and a Hilary government regarding the oil industry.

There is a reason I say the democrats are a center-right party


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
But when you have the neolibs saying that there is no problem, someone acknowledging the problem is at least past the denial phase.

I'm sorry, but the entire left wing is currently based on the idea that there is currently multiple massive problems. You are literally quoting the corporate right and attributing it to the left.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed BNW. Democrats are far to right of center.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Berserker444 wrote:
I could just as easily Google several political standings for the left that are anti many of those points you just stated so I can't exactly say I agree.

1)That have actually made it into policy pushes, not just one leftwing nut on the internet calling for making pet ownership illegal?

2) That are as counterfactual as anthropocentric climate change denial, evolution denial, or trickle down economics?

3) The anti vaccine thing is one of those things where it's under the plane, you walk far enough out to the left or right and that's where you wind up.

Anti-Vax and Anti-GMO are the only 2 things I can think of that even remotely compare and both of those are routinely denounced by others on the left and are almost equal in their support between left and right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
It's amazing how you have confused a comma for a a period and then ignored the entire rest of the sentence.

Your clarification compared her to Trump with bad branding. Trump is actively courting white supremacists. If he doesn't qualify as part of the crazy right, I don't know what does.

1 to 50 of 714 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.