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. 6,004 posts (6,009 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,004 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:


Related question. Do people really drink that much?

The drinking seemed over the top to me. I've never seen an office with bars built in or wine on every desk. Or a pharmacy with beer on tap.

I suspect that's partly intentional - reflecting what the world looked like to her when she was trying to stay sober - temptation everywhere.
I dunno, booze is everywhere in tech, and abundant in workplaces.

Maybe? I don't work in a startup or anything like that, so maybe the culture is different. I mean, sure people drink after work and talk about drinking, but not openly drinking at work. No bottles on the office desks or anything. Closest would be going out for lunch and having a drink or two.

Or at office parties, but that's not work time.

My buddy works for a startup in Seattle and brags about the kegs in the office. If your sober at work your in the minority, and there is a very fraty mentality. Meanwhile, the most I have ever seen is groups that hit up a bar and have maybe 1 beer, 2 on special occasions, at lunch, and while there is some discussions about alcohol, no one talks about getting wasted as recent things. I think it has a lot to do with the corporate environment you are in.


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


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.


Agreed BNW. Democrats are far to right of center.


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.


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.


Krensky wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Krensky wrote:
I did no such thing.
You compared Jill Stein to Trump in terms of danger. The fact that you think these are remotely close is staggering.
That isn't what I said at all.
In response to
thejeff wrote:

So who on the left is "just as dangerous and scary"?

Are they anywhere near as prominent as their equivalents on the right?

your first response is
Quote:
Jill Stein, well, that's not really fair, she's more a left-wing flavored version of Trump with worse branding.

Its exactly what you did.


Krensky wrote:
I did no such thing.

You compared Jill Stein to Trump in terms of danger. The fact that you think these are remotely close is staggering.


Krensky wrote:
Your getting awful defensive there Jeff...

you're the one trying to make false equivalencies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like this article tearing apart the AP

Quote:
The State Department is a big operation. So is the Clinton Foundation. The AP put a lot of work into this project. And it couldn’t come up with anything that looks worse than helping a Nobel Prize winner, raising money to finance AIDS education, and doing an introduction for the chair of the Kennedy Center. It’s kind of surprising.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Krensky wrote:
And it seems Tiny Donnie may well have broken the law by having his campaign purchase over $55,000 worth if his book from Barnes & Nobel's (because buying them from the publisher directly, which is more the norm doesn't count for the NYT Best Seller list). If he received royalties for those copies he's broken the law.

The alleged billionaire's campaign is also soliciting foreign nationals for campaign donations.

His campaign might also be making illegal tax-free payments to campaign staff... twice.

His campaign has paid for the services of the Draper Sterling firm. Someone created a legal entity with the name of a firm from Mad Men. The Trump campaign has paid them about $35,000, and another super-PAC has paid them $56,000. For what? No one knows (or at least no public information is available).

I would not be surprised to find out that the ownership of the Sterling Firm ultimately traces back to Trump himself.

I forget where I saw this, but from what I remember it traced back to a longtime buddy of his but not to Trump directly.


Scott Betts wrote:

In their defense (not that they deserve one), it's basically a cardinal rule of campaigning that you cannot appear to anticipate anything other than a victory. I'm sure they don't believe it, but they absolutely must come up with a rationalization that allows them to behave outwardly as though they are winning, while facing polling numbers that make it clear that the race is basically unwinnable.

Last election it was "The polls are skewed, the unskewed polls show that we're winning." This election it's "The polls are wrong, because a lot of our voters are scared to admit they support Trump." It's nonsense, they know it's nonsense, we know it's nonsense, most of the world at large knows it's nonsense, but it's infinitely preferable to, "Yeah, we're getting destroyed."

The thing is, the didn't know it was nonsense last election. In fact, last week, a Fox reporter basically called the poll inaccuracy line b$&#*+#!, because she refuses to get duped again, reminding people of how stunned they were when the polls turned out to be right.


thejeff wrote:

Exactly. I mean how are we supposed to add all these pieces up: Clinton is a warmonger who has to be bribed to sell more weapons to dictators. The bribes are donations to a charity that she doesn't directly benefit from and that is widely respected for its work and highly rated by the various groups that track such things. Neither her nor Bill or Chelsea collect money from the Foundation - they're not paid a salary by it or anything else. In fact, Clinton also donates the bribes she collects as speaking fees.

It really isn't clear how this nefarious scheme is supposed to work.

Beyond that, the Clintons are making plans not only to have the Foundation stop accepting donations from foreign governments while she's president, but possibly to spin it off from them entirely.

Meanwhile, we're told a little way back in this discussion that Trump's loans from other countries and business ventures in other countries won't influence him, even though he benefits from them directly and plans to retain ownership while President, just letting his children do the active management.
Admittedly, Trump hasn't yet been bribed to abuse his governmental authority - because he has never had any. He has allegedly been on the other side of that equation.

To the last point "He has allegedly been on the other side of that equation." - during the primaries one of his attacks on his opponents was that he had bought them.


Kevin Mack wrote:

Angry joe not very pleased with it

Angry joe

Kinda glad I can't run it and got a refund now.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Actually, this may be my big problem with the article. It implies that these are new, undisclosed emails by Clinton that were hidden, when in reality these were not new. They are emails that the Justice Department obtained through their investigation that they cleared her in, but that she no longer had, and therefore previous freedom of information requests to the state department couldn't grant. The headline is a big part of why the article comes across as misleading.

"Washington (CNN)A federal judge set a preliminary schedule Monday for the release of nearly 15,000 documents between Hillary Clinton and top aides when she was the secretary of state.

The State Department was directed to assess 14,900 documents it received from the FBI as part of the investigation into Clinton's use of her private email server while she was secretary of state, determine a plan to release the documents and report back to the court September 23. "
I may well be wrong, (and dear god help me, I'm reading cnn) but it sure sounds like these are new emails that have not been gone over by anyone. EDIT: This headline also seems to indicate that these are new emails.

"Clinton’s lawyers also may have deleted some of the emails as “personal,” Comey said, noting their review relied on header information and search terms, not a line-by-line reading as the FBI conducted." -WP article. Given that Clinton's lawyers seemed to be the ones doing the filtering, I don't trust their idea of what should be given over for investigation and what should not.

I don't really think there is anything in Clinton's emails that would affect her supporters one way or the other. Maybe something that could get people to vote against her, but her supporters seem willing...

Except none of this is actually new information. The FBI said during their investigation that they recreated thousands of emails that she had deleted, either through reconstruction on old servers or because the people she corresponded with still had them. The only change here is that the FBI has turned over all the emails they collected to the State Department, and the State Department is going slowly in complying with a freedom of information request about them because they have to verify the content. These aren't new emails into an investigation, they are just previously unreleased to the public. Not to mention many of them may have already been released because the 2 collections of emails, the FBI's and the State Departments, haven't been integrated with each other.

This is a non-story trying to be made into a story.\

edit: and that is why it is a bad article. Its implying that these are new and sensational, when they have already been looked at by the FBI (otherwise they wouldn't be turning them over to the state department), and they have been found to be not incriminating. All that is news is that the State Department is being slow to comply with a witch hunt.


Hitdice wrote:
Rednal wrote:
And in something that will probably come up in Trump's commentary soon, the FBI found another 14,900 documents from Clinton not previously disclosed as part of the email probe.

The headline doesn't agree with the body of the article. The headline says "another," but the article doesn't mention any email that weren't reviewed during the FBI investigation. Not that I'm arguing with you, Red. I guess I'm pointing out to Doodles that while a two-time pulitzer finalist* wrote the article, it sure wasn't one who wrote the headline.

*Doesn't that make him a two-time loser, though? You know why the US gets more olympic medals than any other country? 'Cause we count the silvers and the bronzes and, like, every other nation on earth just counts the golds, 'cause second and third aren't wins.

Actually, this may be my big problem with the article. It implies that these are new, undisclosed emails by Clinton that were hidden, when in reality these were not new. They are emails that the Justice Department obtained through their investigation that they cleared her in, but that she no longer had, and therefore previous freedom of information requests to the state department couldn't grant. The headline is a big part of why the article comes across as misleading.


Rednal wrote:
And in something that will probably come up in Trump's commentary soon, the FBI found another 14,900 documents from Clinton not previously disclosed as part of the email probe.

Talk about a s+#!ty article. Then again, I don't expect much from the WP.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

Without organized backing, you have an even lower chance of mounting any kind of successful challenge to an incumbent running as a third party.

Have you ever noticed that very few high jumpers have cleared more than 8 feet? That's obviously a very difficult task. And the few who have done it have done it without wearing a suit of armor. And no one has ever cleared 9 feet, or even 8' 1".

Obviously, if you want to high jump 9', you need to think out of the box; your secret should be that you make your world record attempt while wearing plate armor.

Basically, you're saying "it's unlikely that I will succeed doing something that has been shown to work within living memory, so instead I will try to do something that has never been successful within the past two hundred years." I'm very glad for your sake that you're not choosing the soft option..... <roll eyes>

You mean like the Socialist Party, whose policies were taken over by the New Deal Democrats when they started to gain traction? I'm not saying that the 3rd party will be effective in getting elected. I'm saying that increasing their support will cause their policies to get subsumed by the larger parties. That's why it's a protest vote.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Caineach wrote:
137ben wrote:


In the U.S., there is actually a much more effective way of altering one of the two parties' ideologies: vote in the primaries.
A large Green party vote in a district may convince a primary challenger to challenge a more conservative democrat on the left in the next election though. Something the potential challenger wouldn't see without protest votes.

But it's even more effective if the Green party candidate were to actually challenge the conservative Democrat during the primaries, or in other words, were to run as a Democrat and try to effect change starting with the primary election campaign.

This isn't just hypothetical. This is how the Religious Right took over the Republican party in the 1980s. This is also how the Tea Party took over the Republican Party in the 2000s. No third party has managed to shift the needle significantly since the Whigs were one of the major parties, but there have been lots of revolutions-from-within.

And in both of those cases you had organized groups actively working to make the change. You can't spontaneously generate those. Without organized backing you stand little to no chance of mounting any kind of successful challenge to an incumbent, and even with that backing the odds are never in your favor.


In NY at least, there are usually candidates from 6 or so parties on every race. Its just a matter of if it is a different candidate from the main party, since your name can appear on the ballot under multiple party lines.


137ben wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Caineach wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
It's not naive, it's fighting condescension. If enough people vote for a 3rd party to knock one of the other two out, it's progress, or evolution of a sort. Don't tell me my vote is wasted anymore than gaming is a waste of my time. Right in the neck.

Yeah, and if I could pick the winning lottery numbers in advance, I'd be rich. Neither one is going to happen.

A third party candidate will not win without systemic changes (or, as the jeff noted, one of the existing parties collapsing...in which case the party isn't really a "third" party). If voting for someone who cannot win isn't a waste, I'm not sure what is.

If 3rd parties start pulling significant numbers of protest votes then people with similar ideologies within the major parties know they have backing to be more vocal about ideas less mainstream within the major party. This can cause drift within the larger party towards your preferred ideologies.
Exactly this. The 3rd party may not replace one of the big two, but it may alter thinking within one of the big 2. Either way, mission accomplished, and no vote wasted.

In the U.S., there is actually a much more effective way of altering one of the two parties' ideologies: vote in the primaries. In the U.S., there is actually a much more effective way of altering one of the two parties' ideologies: vote in the primaries. Even one hundred years ago, the two major parties didn't have anything close to the policy platforms they have now. Parties do not have ideologies beyond those of their nominees, which in turn depend on their voters. The only thing even remotely "fixed" about the two big parties are their names. There is no ideological test required to vote in a primary. In some states, you do have to register as a "member" of the party, but there are no requirements for doing so (beyond the normal voter regestration requirements). You can be a registered Republican and vote for the Democrat in every general election, and you'd still be eligible to vote in Republican primaries. You can even switch your voting registration based on which party has a more competitive primary that cycle (many Democrats registered to vote in the Republican primary during the 2012 cycle, since the Democratic primary was largely uncontested. The same thing happened in reverse in the 2004 primaries).

Point being, if you don't like either major party's platform, you can vote in the primaries for a candidate who is closer to you. If all the people who call themselves libertarian had voted for Rand Paul in the Republican primary, we may well have ended up with a Paul vs Clinton match, and we'd all be arguing over Paul's plagiarism scandal instead of Trump University. If more people who say they hate Clinton had showed up to vote for Sanders, we would have Sanders as our Democratic nominee.
Our current president says "don't boo, vote!" That advice applies equally as much to primaries as to general elections. Especially if you feel you dislike both major parties.

This makes a bunch of false assumptions.

First, it assumes that the person isn't also voting in the primaries.

Second, that there are actually candidates in the primaries. At most levels, that isn't really the case, especially if your preferred party has an incumbent. A large Green party vote in a district may convince a primary challenger to challenge a more conservative democrat on the left in the next election though. Something the potential challenger wouldn't see without protest votes.

Third, it assumes that the people are registered to one of the 2 major parties,and that you can freely switch between them. The numbers of registered members of a party is used politically. Not to mention which party you are registered to can have significant effects on your job prospects. There is a reason tons of civil servants in NY are registered as republicans despite holding strong democratic values. Not to mention in some states you need to declare your party affiliation before all the candidates are in the ring. In NY, you had to declare party affiliation in October for the vote in March.

Fourth, it assumes that the only primary that matters is the presidential one, when down-ticket races are probably more important.


bugleyman wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
It's not naive, it's fighting condescension. If enough people vote for a 3rd party to knock one of the other two out, it's progress, or evolution of a sort. Don't tell me my vote is wasted anymore than gaming is a waste of my time. Right in the neck.

Yeah, and if I could pick the winning lottery numbers in advance, I'd be rich. Neither one is going to happen.

A third party candidate will not win without systemic changes (or, as the jeff noted, one of the existing parties collapsing...in which case the party isn't really a "third" party). If voting for someone who cannot win isn't a waste, I'm not sure what is.

If 3rd parties start pulling significant numbers of protest votes then people with similar ideologies within the major parties know they have backing to be more vocal about ideas less mainstream within the major party. This can cause drift within the larger party towards your preferred ideologies.


It wont work on my machine so I picked up Subnautica based off a friend recommendation instead. For anyone looking for a similar exploration game set under water with base crafting, I recommend.


cuatroespada wrote:
Greylurker wrote:

fantastic show, really hoping they get another season, certainly left us an opening for one

also

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

yeah, this series was excellent and my friends and i are excited about season 2. i'm glad they'll be continuing the story too. i really appreciate the characters.

Yeah, that was probably my favorite twist of the ending.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kalshane wrote:

Batman Begins was my favorite of the Nolan trilogy, as well. (I sometimes wonder what would have happened if they had stuck with the original rumored plot-progression, with Joker being the lone villain of TDK and the third movie beginning with the Joker scarring Harvey Dent at his trial. I think wedging Harvey-as-Two-Face and then killing him off into the second movie was too much of a distraction.) I loved Ledger's Joker (though Mark Hamill's will always be #1 for me) but I agree that Alfred, Lucius and pre-Two-Face Harvey were more interesting than Bats in that movie.

TKDR was pretty meh for me. I watched it once and didn't feel the need to see it again. Also, the Batsuit in broad daylight will never not look silly.

Have you seen Killing Joke. Mark Hamill's Joker is amazing at broadway.[potential spoilers in link, but nothing the comic doesn't also have]


Facts do not support your claim
Accidents per capita. Massachusetts and Connecticut are some of the best states. Jersey and New York are both better than average.
Daily Beast has them more ordered


thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Get rid of revives. My god are they worthless in the numbers you get them.

With copious gym battles they come into their own. Burn one instead 2+ basic healing pots.

Otherwise, yeah, they hog up backpack space...

I can't use revives on guys who aren't dead

I suppose if you're winning all your gym battles without losing Pokemon, then they're useless.

I should have such troubles.

I guess I just don't have the half hour it takes to fight through a gym repeatedly enough to take it down. I usually lose 1-2 when fighting something lvl 4 or higher, but after that go do something else, since each battle takes forever to resolve. By the time I'm in the mood to beat up another gym, I've found a few dozen more revives.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Get rid of revives. My god are they worthless in the numbers you get them.

With copious gym battles they come into their own. Burn one instead 2+ basic healing pots.

Otherwise, yeah, they hog up backpack space...

I can't use revives on guys who aren't dead. I also toss out all of my basic healing potions to make room for pokeballs


Get rid of revives. My god are they worthless in the numbers you get them.


thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

Wow! o.O

For obvious reasons I'm accustomed to where I live. Getting an ID is very easy, to the point that very, very few persons should have any problem getting one in short order. The only stumbling block here is self-inflicted.

Not to mention that actually getting the documentation required to get a valid ID is often impractical. Birth Certificates can be a b@+$& since the laws standardizing them are recent and older ones may not be valid for legal purposes, and getting new, proper ones can be very tricky.

Most people have or can get something, even if it doesn't qualify for voting and that might cost more in both time & money.

Bootstrapping id from nothing at all is really hard, but not quite the same problem. Mostly applies to kids/young adults estranged from their parents and such.

It took 6+ months for my brother to get a valid birth certificate for a passport because in 1981 Florida hospitals did not issue certificates that meet the current standards and there was an error on the one they filed with the state. He had to run around collecting data from other sources to correct the error. Amusingly, all the documentation used to correct the error was based off of the not accepted birth certificate, and if my mom was dead he would not have been able to get the correct documents. All of that also required money, at least $100, and this was only 35 years ago. Who knows what older people face if their documentation is lost or deemed invalid.


Turin the Mad wrote:

Wow! o.O

For obvious reasons I'm accustomed to where I live. Getting an ID is very easy, to the point that very, very few persons should have any problem getting one in short order. The only stumbling block here is self-inflicted.

Not to mention that actually getting the documentation required to get a valid ID is often impractical. Birth Certificates can be a b&%%@ since the laws standardizing them are recent and older ones may not be valid for legal purposes, and getting new, proper ones can be very tricky.


Turin the Mad wrote:
The trick is the program they used to build Pokemon GO, based on what people took pictures of et al. Guessing that not a lot of the previous participants did much in the 'tourist area' of the District, relatively speaking.

Each museum has at least 4 pokestops in it and a gym, and then most of the random statues on the Mall and each monument is a stop. There were TONS of pokestops. I just found that the pokemon weren't that much better than what I get sitting at my desk at work, with Doduo instead of Eevee. And since I went with a near-full inventory, the number of pokestops just wasn't that big a deal.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Back from vacation. I have to say, the day in DC was a little disappointing based off of everything I had heard. Only 2 new pokemon, Doduo and Tangela. The Exeggcute and Pinsir were nice additions, but I have seen those closer to home. Not sure what I was expecting, but mildly disappointed.
Where in DC were you? Location definitely matters even in larger cities.

I was at the Natural History Museum and Air and Space Museum, then walked down to Washington Monument. It was way too hot to do too much outside though.


Back from vacation. I have to say, the day in DC was a little disappointing based off of everything I had heard. Only 2 new pokemon, Doduo and Tangela. The Exeggcute and Pinsir were nice additions, but I have seen those closer to home. Not sure what I was expecting, but mildly disappointed.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Does the nature of it not being grass roots somehow change the disgruntled attitudes of the people, or the valid ideas they were putting forth?

Yes.

Because people take that anger and use it to convince them that a lot of other false things are true

Right, but we are discussing the people who noped out when the tea party revealed its crazy, not those who stuck with it and got dragged under.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The rice cooker presented for VP...
Sorry, what is the meaning behind this insult?

Watch the John Oliver clip


Krensky wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.
Yes, am one.

Not me.

Given Bill's repeated public philandering over about a 30 year time span during his time with Hillary, I can surmise one thing.

She will put up with absolutely anything to maximize her access to power (cause she sure isn't staying with him for the money, the kid's sake, or his repentant new self). People who like power that much scare me.

Wow, that's a lot of assuming going on. There are numerous possible reasons that have nothing to do with access to power (which if the case would be completely unnecessary now). Human sexuality and relationships are far too complex to ever ascribe any one single driving factor, frankly your theory is childish in its simplicity.

Edit: To make my support more transparent, if I had to just pick two completely unequivocal reasons why I support her she is the only candidate who is both not anti-vaxx and not a climate change denier. Those two things disqualify every other candidate, before we even get into economic policies, civil rights, etc.

Not sure why you think bernie is anti-vaxx. Quick google search shows he has openly criticized the movement as selfish. Not to mention climate change was a big part of his platform about how economic interests screw the little guy.
He's talking about Stein.

that makes more sense. The original comment was refering to the primaries so I was confused.


Squeakmaan wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.
Yes, am one.

Not me.

Given Bill's repeated public philandering over about a 30 year time span during his time with Hillary, I can surmise one thing.

She will put up with absolutely anything to maximize her access to power (cause she sure isn't staying with him for the money, the kid's sake, or his repentant new self). People who like power that much scare me.

Wow, that's a lot of assuming going on. There are numerous possible reasons that have nothing to do with access to power (which if the case would be completely unnecessary now). Human sexuality and relationships are far too complex to ever ascribe any one single driving factor, frankly your theory is childish in its simplicity.

Edit: To make my support more transparent, if I had to just pick two completely unequivocal reasons why I support her she is the only candidate who is both not anti-vaxx and not a climate change denier. Those two things disqualify every other candidate, before we even get into economic policies, civil rights, etc.

Not sure why you think bernie is anti-vaxx. Quick google search shows he has openly criticized the movement as selfish. Not to mention climate change was a big part of his platform about how economic interests screw the little guy.


CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I'm willing to grant that some individuals got sucked in with good intentions and then driven out as the crazy became more obvious.

Which had to be by the time of the town halls in the summer of 2009, at the latest.

Oh, sure.

I have no doubt that lots of people believed they were part of a 'grass roots movement' seeking to empower the populace. It's just that... they weren't. The Tea Party was never any such thing.

Does the nature of it not being grass roots somehow change the disgruntled attitudes of the people, or the valid ideas they were putting forth?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
One thing about something which started (didn't remain for long) as grass-roots as the Tea Party is that it isn't hard for any group who wants some clout to grab the name.

There never was a 'grass roots' Tea Party.

Rather, the Tea Party was a Koch Industries front group founded in 2002 (as a splinter of their 'Citizens for a Sound Economy' front group dating back to 1984), that was partially co-opted by Ron Paul's campaign for a few months in 2007, then further grown by Koch through support from their 'Americans for Prosperity' front group...

By the time it achieved any sort of national recognition (i.e. February 2009) it had been a corporate run front for nearly a decade.

That may have been true for the organizational level, but its not how the people who were early fans actually saw it. It grew too large, too quickly, for the message to be consistent, so a lot of people saw it as something very different from what it eventually coalesced into. Some early Tea Party rhetoric was very similar to Occupy Wall Street. After about 6 months though, a lot of people left because the inmates were running the asylum.

I'm not sure where you put the 6 months point. A lot of people may have left, but more kept flooding in for the first few years at least.

As far as I can tell the "Tea Party" name first got broadly applied to the Tax protests in 2009. At that point it was already a weird amalgamation of Rand Paul supporters with those stirred up by Palin. Rand had earlier events linked to the Boston Tea Party, but it didn't really become the name of the movement until 2009, by which point it was already far from the Rand roots. Fox picked it up and Beck started promoting it and we were off to the races.

A lot of the early rhetoric was anti-banker and especially anti-bailout. That's really the only similarity to Occupy that I ever saw.

I pulled the 6 month number out of my ass from when I remember my libertarian friends who loved the movement start to flee it. I first heard about it from them, not news, and I wasn't really paying attention to politics at that point, so I can't really say. By the time Palin was involved, they had all already become completely disillusioned with it.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Caineach wrote:
That may have been true for the organizational level, but its not how the people who were early fans actually saw it.

Rich people using angry rhetoric to stir up support to get people to vote against their own best interests is a tradition as old as america itself.

Yes, but early on there were enough intelligent, coherent, voices that it took a little while for the angry rhetoric to become consistent.


There is a Charmander spawn about a mile and half from my house (the 2nd and 3rd closest pokestops), at the town library. I need to head over there at some point.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
One thing about something which started (didn't remain for long) as grass-roots as the Tea Party is that it isn't hard for any group who wants some clout to grab the name.

There never was a 'grass roots' Tea Party.

Rather, the Tea Party was a Koch Industries front group founded in 2002 (as a splinter of their 'Citizens for a Sound Economy' front group dating back to 1984), that was partially co-opted by Ron Paul's campaign for a few months in 2007, then further grown by Koch through support from their 'Americans for Prosperity' front group...

By the time it achieved any sort of national recognition (i.e. February 2009) it had been a corporate run front for nearly a decade.

That may have been true for the organizational level, but its not how the people who were early fans actually saw it. It grew too large, too quickly, for the message to be consistent, so a lot of people saw it as something very different from what it eventually coalesced into. Some early Tea Party rhetoric was very similar to Occupy Wall Street. After about 6 months though, a lot of people left because the inmates were running the asylum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grey Lensman wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
I got curious about Susei no Gargantia... But I'm not a fan of series about giant robots... So I lost interest. :/
Whigh is funny, because it's not a show about giant robots. It has them, but that's not what it's about.
Krensky is correct; Gargantia isn't a giant robot anime as that genre is usually defined.

It does, however, start off looking like one in the intro. Someone who isn't overly aware of the series as a whole can easily mistake it for one.

That said, I recommend the series highly. The giant robots serve the plot rather than being the plot.

I would actually recommend the show for people who do not typically like giant robots. They need to get past the first episode, but after that I think it more resembles a slice of life anime than a giant robot one.


Sundakan wrote:
Slight segue, did a walk through DC today and caught more varied Pokemon and hit more Pokestops in a couple of hours than every other day since I downloaded the app combined. It's kinda ridiculous.

Good to know. I'm visiting DC on Wed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
MewTwo is probably in area 51 or in some nuclear power plant.

heard someone GPS hacked into area 51 and found nothing


Digitalelf wrote:

A couple of honest questions here...

What does wanting to stop illegal (and that is THE key term here), illegal immigration have to do with racism?

And what does wanting to secure our borders with any kind of wall (be it an actual physical one or electronic one) have to do with racism as well?

I mean, most any country in the world will arrest and deport a person (at best) who crosses into their country illegally.

Yet it seems that there are those that appear to not want any restrictions at all placed on coming into ours, and say that it is a bad thing to want to know (via documentation) just who is coming in.

I've heard it said before when the right speaks on the topic of illegal immigration that this country was founded on immigration, totally ignoring that the person specifically said "illegal" immigration. I am sure there are those on the right that really do want to just totally close this country off and be an isolationist nation, but the vast majority of those on the right just want to stop those crossing into our country illegally; and if it takes a wall to do that (because nothing else seems to work), why is that a bad thing? Such a wall is not meant to stop immigration, just illegal immigration.

9 times out of 10 the person saying it thinks anyone of hispanic decent is an illegal.

A wall wont actually be effective. There is way too much land for it to work in any kind of realistic scenario, and the costs are astronomical.

It ignores the reality of the situation, that there are already millions of people in this country illegally and that it is not feasible to deport them. We don't have the infrastructure or manpower to do it.

It is generally motivated by complaints about them stealing jobs, which probably wouldn't happen if the person saying it was actually good at and willing to do the job in the first place.

In the rare cases where they actually are stealing work, it is because they can't find normal jobs so they are forced to resort to places that are willing to do it illegally, which will generally be places looking to undercut US labor laws. Allowing them to work legally will reduce the black market and actually put US workers on the same footing, and generate tax revenue that can be used to alleviate the many issues caused by large numbers of people hiding from the government.

In general, it is a terrible solution to a problem that would be fairly easily solved by letting the people stay legally.


A begrudging respect for Ted Cruz was not what I was expecting out of the GOP convention. As much as I despise the man, I do respect him for his comments on not being a "servile puppy". Though he never was one to follow the rest of the GOP, rarely is he in the right when doing so.


Kolokotroni wrote:
I wonder how skewed the player levels are. Obviously until Niantic makes some changes (which they said they are working on at the moment) being in an urban center will level you much faster. Even Casual players are over 15 for the most part unless they just picked up the game around here.

Casual players around here are ~7


Kolokotroni wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Yeah, at this point almost every gym I see is using eevee evolves. At my desk I catch maybe 5-10 a day. I've found a half-dozen or so places that eevee is almost always there, and myself am sporting 10 CP 1K+ eevee evolves.

Interesting, they are good at taking gyms, not so much at holding them. Most of the gyms around here are held by exeggutors, snorlax, gyrados, or dragonnites. With the occasional seemingly comical but actually kind of clever chanseys (low cp but crazy high hp)

I have yet to see a single one of anything you named. Once again, I think we are seeing the huge disparity in how this game is playing out in major metro areas vs elsewhere.

Really? Interesting. I guess things will shape up differently in different areas. Where I work Gyrarado are sort of easy to achieve with a little time (took me a little over a week for my first on with just lunch break walks along the water). But basically no eevees. I am sure availability matters, though I think most dragonites, and snorlax are coming out of 10k eggs.

Also player density. If 1 in 20 players is level 20+, then NYC will have thousands of players that high while I will be one of a few dozen in my area.

That being said, pretty much everyone here has eevee evolves as their strongest pokemon. They are more common than caterpie. Aside from an unusually strong pidgeon and random Magmar, of the 12 pokemon I have over 1K CP, 10 are eevee.

I spent a day trying to find magicarp and caught like 2, walking along the Hudson shoreline.

1 to 50 of 6,004 << 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.