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

Fergie's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 1,547 posts (1,567 including aliases). No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 1,547 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

houstonderek wrote:

Fergie,

If you're planning on committing a crime,...

Who snitched? It is ok though, I'm not planning on getting caught!

My only experience with jail is in NYC. During the RNC they put us in Pier 57 - a filthy bus depot with chainlink cages topped with razorwire. Then Central Booking, or "The Tombs". The tombs were depressing and the food was really bad, but I did not spend enough time there or mix with the regulars enough to get a real idea about the place.


Comrade Anklebiter, do you still have a PS2 for gaming?

If so, PM me your address.


The 8th Dwarf wrote:
Europe is not a monolithic entity and while some Western European countries have reasonably humane systems - would you choose a Russian, Ukrainian or an Albainian prison over an American one.

Do I get to pick what State in America?


"In the war of the races, I'll side with the bears"
-Edward Abbey

More
music
to riot by:

Public enemy - Fight the Power

Dr.Dre - The day the niggaz took over

Frank Zappa - Trouble Every Day

The Goats - TV Cops

And on the subject of the "N-word"
Public enemy - I Don't Wanna Be Called Yo Niga


In NYC there is a pretty cool group called 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care.

They are the ones who are willing to break with the "official" police propaganda, and speak truth to power. I have real respect for these guys (and ladies) as they catch hell for being black, being cops, and being cops who speak the truth (especially when it comes to other members of the NYPD. I'm guessing that Ferguson doesn't have a similar group, and could really use one right now!

So 100, out of 30,000... It's a start. But more seriously, there is a segment of the NYPD that is very scary. They were once part of the special Street Crime Unit (motto: "We Own The Night"), until it got shut down for all kinds of bad stuff. The white shirts (upper level cops) use them as a tool, often in very inappropriate situations. My point is that like in most large groups, most people are fairly apathetic/distracted, and there are others at both ends of the spectrum. What seems to make the most difference is how the people in command use each end of the spectrum.

PS I was also out in Guttenberg, Iowa last month, and hung out with a really nice cop. The County she was in is the hardest hit by meth in the country, but she still treated the people she interacted with link human beings.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

(update) Reds, Rioting, and how it Really is!

The Four R's of the Goblin Reeducation Camp. (The fourth R is for Reeducation)

How about the Peekskill riot of 49! Happened in my backyard, when Paul Robeson had a concert that was attacked by stone throwing mobs. The police basically watched as yokels formed a gauntlet of stone throwing rednecks miles long as concert goers fled back to NYC. When they were going to have a second concert, they found several white snipers in trees planning to assassinate Paul Robeson.

1949 Peekskill Riots

My town used to have a communist enclave in my town, but I heard from a prominent local socialist and international activist, and photographer, that it has dwindled down to only a couple of old school Communists.

But I often think of this incident as an example of people in desperate need of police assistance. Some times, riot gear is needed. Law enforcement should be used to protect peoples right to protest, not stop them from protesting. I try to keep it in mind that the cop poking me with his billy club might be needed when the drunk rednecks show up...

On the other hand, the cops are usually the ones driving the pick up trucks.

EDIT: I just realized that I was arrested on the 55th anniversary of the first concert/riot. To think that people were having that same sickly crowd violence and fear feeling over half a century before. Weird.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK, as fun as the Gangsta Rap stuff is, I have to share a link that is one of the best things I have ever seen on the internet or anywhere else. I wish it was not so relevant, but sadly, these words have never been more needed then they are right now.

Sgt. Shamar Thomas vs the NYPD

I hate to ruin my well established tough-guy image, but I have to admit shedding a tear the first times I watched this.

Please watch this and show a friend.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Here's the full article: Washington Post: "I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me."

First of all, Fukc that asshoel!

I would also point out that he is a the perfect poster child for the LAPD. If you want to know why they are one of the most hated police departments in the world, THAT's why! What to know the opposite of correct police behavior - LAPD.

Their behavior was the inspiration to an entire genre of music:
Cop Killa - Ice Tea

F#++ tha Police - NWA

Guerrillas in tha mist - Paris

(I would have linked "Coffee Donuts and Death, but the intro to that song is a little too harsh to link in a public forum. But almost every song by Paris is about cops and racial injustice.)

LAPD sucked 20+ years ago when all these songs were made, and I don't think much has changed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fake Healer wrote:
The police are responding to people who are violating the law, not peaceful protesters.

But legally, you can violate the law and still be a peaceful protester. Or more accurately, the law applies differently when you are exercising your constitutional rights. The police can take actions based on there opinions, but whether they are legal or not is up to a judge to decided just as it is up to a judge to decide if the protesters actions are legal. In almost every major protest event like this that uses the Miami Model, the actions of the police fail to pass the threshold for legality. I would say that as a general rule, the police always lose a class action lawsuit (ask me how I know...).

Again, "being part of a crowd" does not make it legal for the police to take action against you. Individual probable cause is required for every charge a person is accused of. Using force against a person who is not reasonably suspected of a specific crime is no more lawful for a police officer then for you or I.

EDIT: Thanks for the good discussion everyone, see you tomorrow.


ShadowcatX wrote:


Less of a difference than you might think actually. Even criminals have rights.

While I agree with your statement, I don't think having rights prevents them from being violated. If someone can violate your rights with near impunity then "having rights" becomes almost meaningless.

EDIT: To apply that to the people of Ferguson- Do they have a right to peacefully assemble, if police interfere with them when they attempt to exercise that right? Do the people need to be granted permission from the police in order to exercise their rights?

vvv Agree vvv


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fake Healer wrote:

Sorry, you can't break the law as a way of protesting the police. You follow the legal rules in place to protest or you risk being treated as...GASP...a criminal.

Here is the tricky part: Laws apply differently to protests then they do to other disturbances. This often gets into the greyer areas of the law, and here is a surprise to many people- many cops are not very familiar with the details of the law. Many cops don't know the fine line of when some some laws may be applied and some many not. {Note: Not a slam on cops here, you can be a good cop without knowing the letter of the law.]

However, when a large scale operation like what is happening in Ferguson is going down, it is a forgone conclusion that the police should operate by legally approved guidelines. In Ferguson the police seem to be operating by a different set of instructions, and it is very important to know who is authorizing this stuff, and whether it follows protocol or goes against it.

I should also point out that cops don't have the power to designate you a criminal, nor are they allowed to sentence you. Police are not supposed to treat you like a "criminal", they are supposed to treat you like a suspect, and there is a big difference!

Finally, I've done all manner of marches, protests, demonstrations, vigils, etc. Some small, some with over a million people. They are a joke. A circle-jerk. They hardly do a damn thing. The media covers you as a traffic disturbance, and says your message was incoherent. The cops spy on you, film you beat and arrest you. The politicians ignore it or pay it lip service, then do whatever they were going to do anyway. If anyone has a better idea to get real change, I'm open to hearing it. Until then, I stand by whatever way the people of Ferguson want to stand up to the unlawful actions of the police. I won't go so far as to say I support people looting, but I have more respect for them then the cops and suck-up politicians.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If we are talking about a "criminal element" in Ferguson, I'm looking at the guys driving military vehicles and throwing tear gas and stun grenades around.

I can watch those videos and see law breaking galore, but it is mostly the police committing the crimes. On the non-police side I see pictures of some looting, what look to be a couple of arson related events and property destruction, and lots of minor traffic stuff, as well as what I'm guessing is a fair amount of public drunkenness. From the Police, I see some very serious civil rights violations, and a whole lot of "continuum of force" violations. Most troublesome is a very obvious failure to secure individual probable cause before using force, including less-lethal weaponry.

Even if people are throwing some rocks and bottles (pretty much the definition of riot) it doesn't justify taking actions against the general population. Even in riotous situations, the law does not recognize guilt-by-association.

The police are acting in an illegal manner, and citizens are not required to obey orders the police are not allowed by law to make. Either the police can back off and get someone in there with creditability, or they can keep having a turf war with locals. The protestors are the ones who are going to be winning the court cases when all of this gets shaken out in the courts*.

*Assuming there is substantial national public attention.


HarbinNick wrote:
Just looters. I think shooting a few looters would stop the others. It would make you stop thinking "free stuff" and start thinking "stay home and live".

"Stay home and live" -I would rather protest in the street then live like a coward.


“With these additional resources in place,” said Mr. Nixon, a Democrat in his second term, “the Missouri State Highway Patrol and local law enforcement will continue to respond appropriately to incidents of lawlessness and violence, and protect the civil rights of all peaceful citizens to make their voices heard.

Someone needs to slap this guy in the back of the head if he thinks these idiots are acting "appropriately".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/12/michael-brown-protests_n_5672163.h tml

I can't watch that video without thinking, "Steroids it, all you steroids steroids! Steroids it!".

EDIT: Anyone have video of this scene?:
https://twitter.com/EliKMBC/status/501591669679329280/photo/1


Here is a link to the article describing how the police edited video in the cases I was involved with:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/12/nyregion/12video.html
That video editing, and the article that came exposed it were the reason my charges were dropped.

Also, the original charge against me was Disorderly Conduct for... Blocking traffic!

The cops aren't very original with this stuff.


ShadowcatX wrote:
What are the outcomes everyone hopes comes out of this?

Much more scrutiny of military responses to protests.

More racial/class equality and understanding.

But I'm not holding my breath. These kind of events can usually be spun to support any agenda.


Aranna wrote:
Shouldn't we try now to see all the sides (and there are more than two) and work to rebuild trust? If the sides cling to distrust then this will happen again at some point.

I find this idea or rebuilding trust troublesome, at least without some drastic consequences. Everything about this incident, and the build up to it has injustice written all over it. Why in the world would the people trust these cops?

Also, our countries founding documents are all about NOT having to trust your government. You don't have a 2nd Amendment because you have faith in your government. You have it so that The People control the government, and not the other way around. Good government is derived through transparency, not blind faith. Right winger types should be all over that idea, and I think they would be if it were white people resisting their government.

EDIT: Not to say that I disagree with what I think your point is Aranna, just that changes, big changes need to be made for it to happen.


Aranna wrote:
"Why didn't the police shoot those looters?"

Traditionally the answer is- they don't shoot (or even try to stop the looting) because it is a black or minority neighborhood being looted. If that was the rich part of town, you can bet that stuff would never be tolerated. When I was in a march on Wall Street, there were THOUSANDS of police standing shoulder to shoulder to protect the richest peoples assets. They just don't do that for poorer people.

The bottom line is that the police don't stop the looting because they don't care, and/or are not skilled enough at law enforcement to do it.


People are looting because the police force has proven to be incapable of correctly doing its job.

This stuff isn't rocket science. We have been dealing with this sort of thing in the US since the days of the Boston Tea Party (looters!), and the Boston "Massacre". How did that work out for the British back then?

The Ferguson PD F-ed up. They shot someone who was surrendering or at least not a threat. Then they left his body in the street. They also seemed to take no action against the shooter. At that point I would think most traditional policing play books (because, you know, you can learn from the past...) would say outreach, get the community involved, make compromises, hear what people have to say, etc. all that boring miserable work. Instead someone decided, "we don't do nation building." and went in GI Joe vs Cobra. It is a lot less work to play guns and APCs, then you know... do your job. Now the people could have respected their authority, or like in almost EVERY SINGLE time this stuff happens from 1770's Boston, to 2010 Iraq, they tell the police to get bent. They show the police that they do not respect their authority.

I think the big question is who ordered breaking out the "insurrection" playbook? Was it the local guy, the county, state, or homeland security or what? Or, has the actual protocol been changed, and who authorized that?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for making great points everybody!

The issue of terms such as criminal, illegal, rioter, protester, are personal for me.

Ten years ago I was the one who got arrested when the Miami Model was used during the 2004 RNC visit to New York City. I was right in the middle of a situation that could very well be described as riotous, and was arrested 8/27/04. The NYPD Brute Squad beat up my friend, impounded hundreds of bicycles, and slapped overly tight zip cuffs on hundreds of us. Then things got weirder. We were held overnight in a huge really filthy bus repair building. In this big place they had built metal chainlink cages topped with coiled razorwire. The next day, a variety of handcuff arrangements, hours spent on a hot bus, mugshots, fingerprints, bologna, and late that night, I finally saw a judge and appointed defense attorney. That was the first time since my arrest that I found out what I was accused of: Two counts of Disorderly Conduct (Blocking traffic and failure to disperse), parading without a permit, and Obstruction of government administration (a misdemeanor similar to resisting arrest). Over 24 hours after I was detained, I was an indited criminal, released until my next court date. The mayor said that the actions of some protesters were like a "form of terrorism", and 1,800 others would have near identical experiences that week.

However, things didn't actually happen the way the prosecutors claimed. Many people had video taped the arrests and protests. When it came to light that the city was editing video evidence and this was reported in the NY Times, my criminal charges were dropped, as were many of the 1,800 people arrested that week. In fact, about 90% of the cases related to the RNC have been dismissed.

Several lawsuits have been filed against NYC. Recently the largest protest related class action settlement in history has been awarded to those arrested.

Now were are only a week or two from the 10 year anniversary of that experience. A month ago I spoke before the State Judge in protest of that settlement verdict for failure to designate where I was arrested as a "Mass Arrest Location Subclass". As it is, I only fall into the class of people who were put into the overly tight zip cuffs, and subjected to the filthy bus depot. The city was found to have done several actions that did not pass the legal threshold, such as arresting people in mass groups, and poor conditions of confinement. Other actions by the city, such as holding people for extended period was deemed legal because people on the internet said they would keep protesting after getting arrested.

The short version of all this is: when I was an "accused criminal", they held me in a filthy pen, took my stuff, and treated me like s+!* for a day, then it was court dates and such for months. When I accused them of being criminals, it takes ten years, and now they pay me with everyone's tax money. In two weeks, ten years will have passed since then, and I still haven't gotten a dime from it.

Law and morality have very little connection. A vast number of people generally held in the highest esteem in our society, from Galileo, to George Washington, to Gandhi have all been accused of some of the harshest crimes. While it has generally bad connotations, the truth is that being a criminal sometimes puts you on the moral high ground, while some of the worst actions are not illegal at all. What is legal can become illegal, and the process often takes years or decades.

As related to Ferguson, what the kid did in the store would not result in criminal charges, and probably nothing more serious then a warning or probation. Even if he were found to have committed a violation that would not make him a "criminal" anymore then getting a speeding ticket or forgetting to insure your car for a month- wait, sorry, that is a felony, the most serious form of crime. Anyway, if you or I started shooting people with less lethal rounds and using military vehicles against crowds, we would quickly be convicted criminals, however the legality will probably take many years to decide.


Please be fairly civil with each other in this thread. I don't want it locked before I get home from work.


Andrew R wrote:
Also, what should you do when riots start to get violent? Let them?

If it is the police being violent, it becomes a very difficult situation to deal with. Police seem to know this, and use violence very effectively. I am amazed at how often someone is willing to step forward and justify the violence of the State.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

At first it was "just" another tragic shooting of a minority kid by a white cop in a area that is 2/3 black, yet 50 out of 53 of the cops are white. But things have gone from a normal level of horrible, to a more serious level of really horrible.

There are deeply disturbing things happening in the aftermath of the shooting. Several factors point towards the adoption of the "Miami Model" by "local" police. The Miami Model is a fairly sophisticated, yet also simple set of tactics that the police have been using for over a decade to clamp down on protest. You can find out about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_model

In Ferguson, the police have really gone for the militarization stuff including the armored personal carriers, what look to me like guns more fit for war then crowd control, as well as masks, no ID, full body armor, etc. The police are making preemptive arrests, blocking off areas, and treating journalists who are not "embedded" as criminals. They are also pushing many of the common propaganda lines of the Miami Model, such as "bad outsiders disrupting local peaceful protests", "good people stay home", "allowed vs forbidden protests" etc. I can say from my own personal experience, as well as following large scale protest events for over ten years, that the whole thing is horse s%##!

At almost every major event the Miami Model is used, the corporate media play along, a "good protester" march is allowed, then the cops beat up and jail people on a massive scale. Usually the cases are thrown out of court on basic constitutional grounds. Years later, the arrested and assaulted collectively get millions from tax payers, the police in charge get promoted, and the whole thing gets repeated in the next city.

What is happening in Ferguson is especially disturbing because of the rapid nature of the use of the Miami Model. Normally it takes a while to build up, but it seems to have happened overnight in Ferguson. I can basically guarantee that the local cops got some serious assistance from someone at a Federal level, in much the same way that they got help to crush the Occupy movement. I can also guarantee that this isn't the last time a response like this will happen at a smaller and more local level.

Finally, there is the old saying about hard hats making hard heads. When you dress people up like stormtroopers (Nazi stormtroopers, not the fun kind) guess what? They act the part. Expect them to treat the local citizens as enemy combatants, right down to the detention and later advanced interrogation techniques. You didn't expect that stuff to just end overseas did you? The guys doing it over there came home, joined the police, and are willing to please there commanding officers.

One last thing- I had heard something about St Louis reaching an agreement back in the day between The Powers and The People in regards to maintaining a level of peace. Seems like shooting an unarmed teenager violated that agreement, and rather then make peace, The Powers is doubling down on violence. I think this could lead to a much larger scale problem unless some serious negotiation/restitution takes place.


fictionfan wrote:
Reading this thread I get the impression that both side think the same thing, but are misrepresenting the other side so that they can Win the argument. Unless anyone really thinks that the best action for a cleric is to Top up the parties HP in the middle of combat when they are not likely to go down that round?

I suspect another point of disagreement might be exaggerated by the unexpected and unknown nature of tabletop RPG. Saying something is better then another option requires a baseline, however that is represented at best by the CR system and few charts... So, basically there is no baseline.

But I suspect that about 25% of people would say you should almost never heal in combat, 50% would say that you should heal when it is needed to keep someone from excess risk of dropping, and 25% would say you should heal when there isn't a better option. I don't think anyone thinks you should ALWAYS or NEVER heal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Slinks off to go heal with the other uncool kids...


I think the point is that you can cast all three of those spells, and still cast the empowered cure critical. And you haven't used any of your highest level spells or spent a gp.

Healing doesn't prevent you from doing other cool things.


Suichimo wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Considering that neither of these options uses any substantial resources, or requires any special feats, equipment, build (other then healing domain), I would say that healing is VERY effective!
Just want to say that Cure Critical is either a 4th or 5th level spell. At level 10, that is definitely a substantial resource.

The healing domain cleric is easily capable of swapping out other spells and using domain spells to cast:

5 empowered cures serious
5 empowered cure critical
3 empowered cure light mass and a breath of life, or other combos.
Also, you can channel 5d6 about 4-5/day, cast a half dozen each empowered cure light and moderate, and use the heal skill to heal a little as well. Next level you get access to the Heal spell (110hp healing), and your channel jumps to 6d6. This doesn't spend a dime on wands, scrolls, potions, rods, etc. even though you get 7,000gp for the encounter. It is also without a feat, trait, racial ability, or anything else but choosing healing as one of your two domains, and channeling positive energy instead of negative.

A fourth level spell, (that could be memorized as any other) is not insignificant, but I would not call it a substantial use of resources in a CR 11 "Challenging" encounter.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Not to mention a single CR 11 fight against a party of level 10's is so pathetic it barely bears mentioning. That's one of those things that more optimized characters are easily capable of soloing. If you need to heal for that I'd be worried about the safety of your group.

If the encounter is "Epic" difficulty, the average damage goes up from 50 damage a round, to 60. Again, assuming that all attacks can be made and are successful. It also uses the "High Average Damage" number.

My point is that under the default conditions of the game, healing works just fine. If you want to optimize damage, and optimize healing, I think it still holds up.


In answer to the original post about how to operate without healing- It is simple, have your dominated creatures, undead minions, bound outsiders, and simulacrums do everything for you.

Anything less, and your not playing the game as efficiently as possible, and thus your doing it wrong!

But seriously, healing in combat works just fine.

While it is true that healing can't keep up with damage indefinitely, it most certainly can be effective enough to be a very important action. For example, take a 10th level cleric with the healing domain, casting cure critical wounds- 4d8+10 empowered averages about 38 healing per round. If almost 40 hp of healing/round isn't keeping the character (who probably has about 100hp) in the fight, you probably need to switch up your tactics. Especially considering that the "high avg damage" of a CR 11 creature is only 50.

If multiple characters have gotten banged up, a channel will heal 5d6 (avg 17hp). while this isn't a very big chunk of hp at 10th level, if you hit everyone in the party, and a summoned creature, mount, familiar, etc. It could likely be almost 100hp of healing.

Considering that neither of these options uses any substantial resources, or requires any special feats, equipment, build (other then healing domain), I would say that healing is VERY effective!

Repost from this thread:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pbph?Myth-Busters-Pathfinder-Edition#1


Sissyl wrote:
Such a war today would undisputably involve massive numbers of nuclear warheads.

I think the same would have been said about chemical warfare before WWII. Nukes have significant drawbacks, and would probably only see widespread use only under a very specific set of circumstances.

I see the sides shaking out to something like the "coalition" for teh second Iraq war as the starting point. US, UK, Australia, Israel - basically the Rupert Murdoch countries on the same side. Some of the former Nato countries would also be pulled in such as Germany and France, and maybe even Poland.

Then there is Russia and several former Warsaw countries, especially in the Balkans.

North Africa, and much of the Middle East would form a third group, probably based on Jihad against foreigners coming after their oil. Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey would probably fall into this side as well.

China, North Korea, and one or two other neighbors would probably join up to maintain China as a upcoming world power.

India is surrounded by possible aggressors, and would probably be more concerned about maintaining balance and keeping its neighbors from nibbling away at its borders.

Then you have some real questions such as Brazil and a few other Central and South American countries. I also have no idea where some parts of southern or far Northern Europe might end up, although I would think it would be more a reaction to threats from Russia or the Middle East then love of allies.

Finally, I think there would be a whole lot of shifting, sneaking diplomacy such as between Hitler and Stalin before WWII. The alliances and map before the conflict would look very different then a year or two into things.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
"But what I really think is, it should be like a corporation. You pay a million dollars in taxes, you get a million votes. How's that?"

Gasp! That is UN-American! You need to BUY those votes from the private sector, not get them from big government!

PS Thanks thejeff! You said it better then I could.


Fouquier-Tinville wrote:
. wrote:

Pretty much what I said. Not just homophobic, though I'd count "proposing castration for sodomy" to be pretty damn homophobic by today's standards.

But pretty much ok if you kept it discreet. Stayed at least nominally in the closet. Both for homosexuality and for heterosexual affairs.
Pfft. We declared sodomy "an imaginary crime" and abolished all laws against homosexuality in 1791. Eat that, Jefferson.

Sparta had man-boy sodomy ingrained in its culture in 400BC!

[sodomizes mic]
[drops mic]
[walks off stage]


Smurfs got it worse!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa782wOrUVM


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Well, that's certainly one opinion.

I did hold back my real feeling since this is a forum where people are expected to be polite, and not use four letter words.

I guess I'm not a fan of governments using force against civilian populations.

Never bought the justifications for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
... In the following few days the IDF raised a polite hell.

Or as it is more commonly know-war crimes.

While I feel bad for many of the civilians, the rulers of Israel deserve to be hung by their necks from the nearest street lamp.

Occupation, torture, apartheid, murder, etc. etc. these are the actions of scumbags, not a civilized society. Your governments actions are to blame for these current problems.

Lord Snow, I'm glad your alright, and I'm deeply sorry you are a victim of location and circumstance. Clearly you are not to blame for any of this. I feel great sorrow for the kids and others killed on both sides, but Israel's government is less deserving of sympathy then just about anything short of North Korea. Israel is the source of its own suffering, and needs to get its morals right, or suffer the consequences.

PS Don't get me wrong, the US plays a huge part (especially financial/arms) in all of these problems, and if there is a night of long knives (to put it in Nazi terms), the US government would also get thinned out quite a bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fake Healer wrote:


...
I just don't understand it. Frickin' burger flippers trying to demand 15-20 $ an hour, people making almost double the minimum wage in a minimum wage job and complaining about how is covered in their healthcare....
I guess it's just me but I don't feel sorry for some idiot making almost double what he/she could be, who passes over 16 forms of covered contraceptives, who then gets pregnant and complains that the 4 methods of contraceptives that could then work are not covered while my wife, who also works for a corporation, has coverage that sucks in general.
...

Please don't take this the wrong way, but it is probably the same lack of empathy for "some idiot" that results in your wife's poor health care. I'm guessing that you probably make well more then minimum wage, and that you make a decent living wage for your area. I'm guessing that you and your wife feel you deserve better care then you get and better care then that idiot you mentioned. Now there are many people making not twice, or four times, or even ten times, but 100 times more money then you make. If you work for a corporation, there are probably many who make decisions about your compensation and benefits. To them, you and your wife are the "idiots" who get paid far more then the minimum wage they feel you deserve. In their minds YOU should just be glad to have a job at all, since outsourcing your jobs would save them all kinds of money.

The measure of how deserving you are of healthcare is not based on the size of your bank account. That guy flipping burgers, or the CEO of Burgercorp is neither superior nor inferior to you. People deserve the best healthcare and education that the society can provide, not the most they can buy leaving the scraps for the poor.


Andrew R wrote:
Many conservative feel the gov is often the problem, many liberals believe that the gov is always the answer.

Do you honestly believe any part of that?

I think the whole debate just illustrates that Capitalism, (especially of the crony variety) is a piss poor way of taking care of medical and health needs. For capitalism to work, it needs to be able to fail, and there needs to be a mechanism of informed choice. You just can't get anything close to a "free market", and even if you could, the poorest people would just be left out of it.

I think a single payer system including everyone from the president to those on death row, with real limits on where the money goes would be better for almost everyone in the country, and would simultaneously fix most of the problems of the VA, which as far as I am concerned is a national disgrace.


Rynjin wrote:
Modern Warfare 3 is basically the worst thing in existence.

That is true from a time destroying perspective, and in the sense that it trains you to shoot at people (who are often speaking in middle eastern sounding voices).

This will blow many peoples minds, and I'm sure make them think less of me, but... I don't even play it online...

I mostly just play the survival mode and missions split-screen.

Horrible right?

Any other games that are good to play split screen these days? I've been thinking of Boarderlands 2. Since I have something like 40 full days of playing time on MW3, I'm thinking it is time to give it a break for a while.

Also, for Rise of Nations, I mostly just play a "quick game" against a couple of digital opponents. What makes the game so great is that you can totally customize every aspect of the game, from difficulty to victory conditions, resources, etc.


Assault Rifle Armed Monkey Uprising?

Where do I sign the petition to get this thing off the ground?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Going way back in time, I would mention the Bard's Tale games from the 80's. But the best games of that era were the Ultima Series from Lord British aka Richard Garriott. I played the hell out of Ultima 4, but 5 was AMAZING for the time.

Flash forward to more recent times, and I would have to say War Craft 2, Star Craft, and age of Empires 2 all leading up to the best game ever, and one that I have lost a chunk of my life to - Rise of Nations. RTS with everything from spearmen and slingers to ICBMs and Artificial Intelligence, with all the cool machine guns, air craft, tanks and battleships as well.

Baldurs Gate Dark Alliance for PS2 had the best graphics and game play of that era. I have played through that game and the sequel several times, and they are always fun and addicting.

Special mention goes to SimCity 4 with some of the fan made add-ons. If they just remade that game with a modern interface and a few tweaks it would be incredible.

Finally, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 is the best FPS I have every played. Even Black Ops and Ghosts do not have the "combat simulator" feel of MW3. It isn't so much a game, as a conditioning tool for shooting people. Disturbing good fun.


http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p331&page=6?What-Exactly-Is-a-Tentacle-Att ack#254

This post also gives insight into the design process.


From FAQ:

"Unarmed Strike: For the purpose of magic fang and other spells, is an unarmed strike your whole body, or is it a part of your body (such as a fist or kick)?

As written, the text isn't as clear as it could be. Because magic fang requires the caster to select a specific natural attack to affect, you could interpret that to mean you have to do the same thing for each body part you want to enhance with the spell (fist, elbow, kick, knee, headbutt, and so on).
However, there's no game mechanic specifying what body part a monk has to use to make an unarmed strike (other than if the monk is holding an object with his hands, he probably can't use that hand to make an unarmed strike), so a monk could just pick a body part to enhance with the spell and always use that body part, especially as the 12/4/2012 revised ruling for flurry of blows allows a monk to flurry with the same weapon (in this case, an unarmed strike) for all flurry attacks.
This means there is no game mechanical reason to require magic fang and similar spells to specify one body part for an enhanced unarmed strike. Therefore, a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body, and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes.
The text of magic fang will be updated slightly in the next Core Rulebook update to take this ruling into account."

I bolded the key part

EDIT: I vaguely recall that unarmed strikes did bludgeoning damage, but I can't seem to find that in the rules anywhere...


I think the "political practice" argument really only comes up when you compare a windmill to no-windmill. Sure, if I don't have to live next to a windmill, I won't.

But reality dictates that modern civilization requires lots of electricity. [Sites important SimCity4 statics]. So no matter where you live, there is probably going to be some form of power generation system nearby.

So, you get to live near:
A. Coal burning power plant/strip mine
B. Oil burning power plant/ Iraq
C. Gas burning power plant/ fracking hole/ polluted or used up ground water
D. Nuclear power plant/ post apocalyptic wasteland
E. Solar farm - lots of unsightly panels
F. Wind farm - lots of unsightly windmills.

Hydro-electric, tidal, and geothermal not included due to severely limited locations.

So, unsightly panels/ turbines with some noise, tv reception, and a few dead birds...
OR Iraq, climate change, and possible environmental devastation lasting up to thousands of years...


Cpt_kirstov wrote:

Where? Having one turbine up lowers property values and scares away potential buyers for a 2.5 mile radius around it. This is why almost no towns are allowing them in their limits. Depending on the state/country they may also allow anyone who gets chronic headaches after a turbine goes up to sue the town if they do not have voted on planning and zoning specific to turbines. Creating this planning and zoning costs the towns a lot in lawyer fees and time to come to a consensus with those who come to meetings. The wind colony off Cape Cod has been planned for over 10 years, but stuck in legal battle for 8

Besides, building a wind turbine is a 7-10 year process. They put poles up to monitor the wind in several locations for a 5-7 years per turbine, and then spend 2-3 years building the actual turbine at the best location.

They also can't be within a certain number of miles from any endangered bird nest, (and if one is even sited due to moving immigration patterns, they need to stop and take down the turbine within 60 days - at least in my state)

In other words - your time limit is bogus 20-30 years MIGHT be doable, and you don't address what happens if there is no place that will allow them.

I live near one of the oldest nuclear plants in the US. I would trade the made up "problems" you mentioned over the possibility of a Chernobyl or Fukashima any day of the week, and I would bet the same thing could be said for the next hundred generations as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's just like that documentary, Red Dawn.

PS You know who freakin' loves military helicopters?

The Russians!

Coincidence? I think not!

WOLVERINES!!!


You may vote for someone you like for president, but you don't "elect" them to office. The Electoral College does that, and a few times in history, such as 2000, the one with the most votes does not get elected.

And then there are all sorts of other sleazy tricks like kicking people off of voter lists and monkeying with ballots, counting, etc.

We get the democracy we deserve, not the one we want.


Somethings are left best as a dream. If you can live with that, then letting go could be easier. Gotta be clear on your choices, and yes you can keep your cake and still properly utilize the icing on your cupcake without hurting anyone. 


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"its only illegal if you get caught"
-The Code of Hammurabi.

When law enforcement commits a crime it often falls to the victim to pursue action through lawsuits and court processes. It isn't illegal until the court says so. When you commit a crime, they lock your ass up on the spot. It's illegal when they say it's illegal.


That is pretty close to what is often described to me as the long version of "Anarchy". I guess it is the most lawful yet non-hierarchical form of governance your going to get.

Myself, being more along the chaotic end of the spectrum, can't sign your petition. But for the love of Chaos, there go I.


Just say no.

Charm is OK, as it is a first level spell that basically just bypasses a diplomacy check. You can get creatures to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do, but the spell doesn't say anything about getting them to do something they would never do.

Dominate Person is one of the most powerful spells in the game. There is nothing stopping a caster from having several or even several dozen dominated minions. By selecting the right victims (mostly chaotic/evil creatures), and properly wording commands you can get them to do whatever you want.

If the player wants a sidekick, there is leadership. If the player wants to run half the monsters and NPCs, they should sit on the other side of the screen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/supreme-court-cellphones-search-privac y.html

So if you catch them spying on your phone, and sue them, and win, and the case makes its way through the appeals process, someday, you might get a court settlement.

Your "rights" protect you...

1 to 50 of 1,547 << 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.