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

Grey Lensman's page

2,948 posts (2,957 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 2,948 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Are you trying to correct me for something you imagined I said?


Irontruth wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Farael the Fallen wrote:
Yes, Hillary won the first Presidential debate and made Trump look very unprepared (sniff), but the truth is that the only Vice-Presidential debate between Tim Kaine and Mike Pence will decide the outcome of the election. For that reason, and two others, that debate deserves it's own thread. I will go a step further and say that the Kaine/Pence debate will go down in history as one of the greatest debates of all time, and it will be studied by historians for centuries. You may proceed with the commentary...

Which past presidential election do you feel the vice presidential debate was the deciding event in the outcome?

Honestly, there's evidence that VP selection basically has zero effect on the electoral outcome of the election, which means the debate has an even smaller effect.

Hmm, trying to think of a VP pick that affected the outcome post LBJ. That's Veep LBJ.
Are you claiming that the debate between Henry Lodge and Lyndon Johnson influenced the election of 1960?

No, but I am saying that having LBJ on the ticket influenced the election.


I think Kaine got in better hits, but Pence looked more polished.

Personally, I think Pence was the (narrow) winner, but Kaine got in the biggest line of the debate - that Pence was asking the people to vote for someone he was unable to defend. Of course, every time it looked like Pence was pinned, the moderator changed the subject and saved him.

A few days will tell which story dominates the news cycle.


MMCJawa wrote:
wow...that was a pretty horrible dodge on the how would you deal with homegrown terrorism question

Pretty much translates into "We'll deal with homegrown terrorism by making you even more afraid of foreigners!"


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Dragoncat wrote:
On a somewhat related note, does anyone wish the moderator was allowed to have an air-horn that she can use whenever the two candidates start arguing over each other?

Yeah, it's really pissing me off they keep talking over the mod.

I think they both should have been strapped into their chairs, and Quijano should have buttons to shock them into shutting up.

I wish she would stop changing the subject every time Pence runs out of dodging time. She has been a huge help to him so far.


doc roc wrote:

Income inequality is a fact of life... I find it bizarre that people always rage about it. And this is coming from someone that will in all probability never be a millionaire!

The deluded utopian notion of equality that the left insist on.... is just that... deluded.

Artificially punishing the successful and rewarding the less successful does nothing but promote inefficiency.

Left leaning economics promote nothing but debt, public sector bloat and corruption and lack of incentive.

Human society is so screwed up because it doesnt obey the fundamental laws of nature.

What I am hugely in favour of is completely revamping the tax system to make sure that everybody pays their taxes. I would close every loophole.

Flat rate of income tax.... bring it on! :)))

Sorry to pile on like this, but my problem isn't the inequality itself, but the levels. I'd like the Gilded Age to stay in the history books.


Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Because the laws regarding the economic policies that lead to that are drawn up by congress and require congress to change it. Merely having the presidency isn't enough.

Given that that is the one thing republicans actually care about, you not only need an act of congress (something i find less likely than an act of god) you need the senate to be able to get through the filibuster and every delaying tactic available.

Getting in Clinton or trump is the difference between staunching the bleeding or playing razor wire hopscotch. fixing the problem is MUCH bigger than one election.

OK, thanks.

But if it's actually trending the wrong way over the past 8 years what's there to make us believe that it will change for the better over the next 8 years?

Not a lot.

We could make it worse, if you'd like.

I mean, you have a choice between people who're promising to try to improve things, who might be lying and might fail even if they're telling the truth and people promising to make things worse who are almost certainly not lying (about that at least).

To be fair, they're not actually promising to make it worse, but they're promising policies that will do so.

Bingo!

Which is why I'm voting for Bernie.

Sanders should NOT have changed his party regstration back after losing the primary IMO - he could have leveraged his primary results into being a leader of the Senate and pushed his agenda through there. Clinton can only sign new laws that actually get through Congress, after all (or veto them, of course). Sanders and Warren both pushing to lead the left wing would have given it far more power than Warren alone.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Fergie wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


If donald trump becomes president, the political system will become more gerrymandered towards republicans, citizens united will remain law, the rich will still dodge taxes, and trickle down economics will still be the government pancea to all of lifes problems.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but I should point out:

If Hillary Clinton becomes president, the political system will become more gerrymandered towards democrats, citizens united will remain law, the rich will still dodge taxes, and trickle down economics will still be the government pancea to all of lifes problems.

Meh. If you don't want more trickle-down economics, don't vote for either of them!

Except that the Democratic platform (and Clinton's speeches) have specifically included planks about addressing Citizens United. And on economic redistribution (e.g., changing trickle-down economics).

Basically, what you're saying is that if you ignore all the ways in which we know the two candidates to be different, they're exactly the same. Similarly, if you ignore the actual score, the Steelers-Chiefs game was a tie last night.

False equivalence is not just a fallacy, but it's a particularly stupid argument.

Don't forget that gerrymandering is currently heavily tilted towards Republicans - tilting it might merely result in balancing it the first time. Not counting the fact that the districts are drawn by State legislatures, and no matter who wins the election it won't matter on this issue.


Thomas Seitz wrote:
*knows Trump will probably start WWIII by declaring war on North Korea. "Accidently" hits Salt Lake City and Las Vegas* *declares he needs a map* *starts WWIV by trying to take over Iceland*

Your scenario is too sane for Manchurian Donnie. Try something so crazy that it would be rejected as too outlandish by David Lynch.


Irontruth wrote:
Farael the Fallen wrote:
Yes, Hillary won the first Presidential debate and made Trump look very unprepared (sniff), but the truth is that the only Vice-Presidential debate between Tim Kaine and Mike Pence will decide the outcome of the election. For that reason, and two others, that debate deserves it's own thread. I will go a step further and say that the Kaine/Pence debate will go down in history as one of the greatest debates of all time, and it will be studied by historians for centuries. You may proceed with the commentary...

Which past presidential election do you feel the vice presidential debate was the deciding event in the outcome?

Honestly, there's evidence that VP selection basically has zero effect on the electoral outcome of the election, which means the debate has an even smaller effect.

Hmm, trying to think of a VP pick that affected the outcome post LBJ. That's Veep LBJ.


thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

I'm waiting for Thursday October 20th. Then I'll know who's going to win.

EDIT

OK, make that Tuesday October 4th.

Linkified

"Wolf! There's a wolf!"

Sure. Whatever. Maybe Assange really does have the dirt on some scandal that'll take Clinton down - just like every right wing conspiracy theorist has expected at any moment for the last 30 years.

This time for sure.

Personally, I think holing up in that embassy has resulted in Assange living in an echo chamber - he probably really believes the things he is saying now.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Were they?

NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.

I remember Dubya wanting to go it as close to alone as we could manage, mainly to combat the 'America is weak when actually hit' stance that was percolating in the terrorist worldview at the time.

That they were involved in Afghanistan makes the entry into Iraq look even more stupid (and I already thought it was an epic blunder to begin with).


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I already outlined some of the military forces that Russia has within an easy walk of Estonia. (And I mean it literally -- an easy walk.) The only thing that keeps Putin out of Estonia and Latvia is (as far as I can tell) fear of international retaliation, which in turn means NATO. If Putin believes that the US will not defend Estonia, can Germany and France provide an effective deterrent? And so, what happens if Putin calls Trump's bluff on defense of the Baltic States?
If Russia were to just invade Estonia, or the other two Baltic States, I extremely doubt that even Obama would go to war over them, any more than the West did so when the Russians did it the first time.

Perhaps, but the rest of the NATO membership would be pretty appalled. NATO is one of the few alliances in history where the mutual defense clauses (specifically, in this case, Article 5) have teeth and are taken seriously.

As Sissyl pointed out, people put up with the US "because the US is powerful, at least vaguely sane, and above all predictable." Backing out of Article 5 does not enhance any of those three...

NATO was willing to invoke Article 5 over September 11th, but were talked out of it.


Quark Blast wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

If what Julian and Co. have is patently true and very damaging, releasing it sooner would be better.

If what Julian and Co. have is likely true and/or somewhat damaging, releasing it later in the month would be better.

I think if they had anything worthwhile they wouldn't be announcing it. The point of the October Surprise is, you know, the surprise. I think Assange is just hoping to psyche Clinton out and whatever it is will be a big pile of nothing, same as the DNC leaks.
Five people are out of their jobs at the DNC. So, what exactly do you mean by "big pile of nothing"?

How many of them were on the way out already? I know with Wasserman-Schulz the push to remove her was already at a fever pitch. And good riddance, too. I'd suggest maybe she can go work for a payday lender, but a look at her voting record shows she already was.


Sissyl wrote:

I understand. I just find it odd that the consequences of electing Trump regarding foreign relations is virtually invisible in the debate. It is going to change things enormously for everyone.

I do understand... but. During all the trade deals, all the s@$#ty laws American diplomats pushed through the EU and various countries, all the military joint ventures, etc etc etc, we accepted it because the US is powerful, at least vaguely sane, and above all predictable.

He gets elected, none of it is likely to remain true. Our politicians will not even dare to suggest furthering cooperation with the US (which is already pretty strained) for fear of inciting riots and parties never getting elected again. Old deals will be reexamined - because the context when they were written has changed too much. The slightest hint that the US is trying to punish those who break those deals - further anti-American sentiment, and a harder backlash.

My point is: YOU GUYS AT LEAST GET TO VOTE. We don't.

Any candidate who brings that up will be ridiculed to no end - I remember the hoopla about Kerry saying 'We must pass the global test' and it wasn't pretty, he was made out to be a guy who was going to surrender the country's sovereignty (a killer charge when you understand that in the U.S. we have states that think the federal government is encroaching too much.).

The pundits might bring it up, but none of the campaigns will. If one does I can tell you who the loser of the election will be with near certainty.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

I thought i was watching the debate again

Seriously, they don't need to change trumps lines at all.

Comedy Trump is more coherent and sane than the real deal.

Scary thought, isn't it?


Sissyl wrote:

Well, there is a pretty sincere risk that you guys inflict Trump as president of the US and A on us. That is going to be fun, isn't it? It's going to be a huge blow to all of us if it happens, and the willingness to deal with America in any way, shape or form is going to be severely impacted. Trade deals don't usually prosper unilaterally. Nor will people actually dare to risk cooperation in security and military matters with a country run by someone as unpredictable as Trump there. Expect HUGE fallout from it, and it is quite likely that the role America has now will end very quickly with Trump as POTUS.

This is, of course, just as I understand things. It is a huge mistake coming. Deal properly with it.

EDIT: I shouldn't call presidential candidates that. Bad Sissyl. Even when they deserve it.

I live here, how do you think I feel about the fact that a guy who might be our very own Chavez or Erdogan even has a chance at being in charge?

My wife has already told me that if he gets elected her first reaction will probably be to break down and cry. Mine will be to lament that I don't have the proper skills to leave the country. At not to rapid employment elsewhere, anyways.


Someone is extra salty today....


Sissyl wrote:
You never THROW the ball when playing football. That is against the rules. You KICK the ball, you know, with your FOOT. FOOT-BALL.

This is the U.S. election and our sports metaphors are the ones that apply. Over here football is something else, we call what you are referring to as soccer.

What the rest of the world calls football can be used as the sports metaphor in their elections.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

I'm waiting for Thursday October 20th. Then I'll know who's going to win.

EDIT

OK, make that Tuesday October 4th.

Linkified

I was wondering when that was going to happen. Amazing that it got produced after the debates, isn't it?

Meh. You only play your trump card (pun not really intended) when you're going to lose the trick otherwise. If Clinton had tanked the first debate, there wouldn't have been any need to start a new smear campaign.

Or, if you don't like the bridge analogy, try a football one. You don't throw a Hail Mary pass when you're [i]winning[i], do you?

Depends on the circumstances - if you have the ball just before halftime go for it, even an interception isn't likely to cause any damage, but it can help pad the lead and secure momentum.

Never give them a chance to get back into the game.


Quark Blast wrote:

I'm waiting for Thursday October 20th. Then I'll know who's going to win.

EDIT

OK, make that Tuesday October 4th.

Linkified

I was wondering when that was going to happen. Amazing that it got produced after the debates, isn't it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
I said ATM. Not like all time Free.

Right now that's a pretty low bar - with the Hydra brain-whammy Steve is operating under it pretty much makes anyone who wears red, white, and blue a better Cap by default.


CrystalSeas wrote:

Well, the Detroit News thinks he's the best choice

Detroit News Endorses Johnson

Well, he IS a better choice than Trump, even if that is an admittedly low bar.

Like, Marianas Trench low.


Threeshades wrote:
I may be remembering eldritch blast wrong, but the point holds true with other casters. Even more so with other casters who dont get the ability bonus at all.

It does hold true except for a few corner cases - knowledge domain cleric, evoker wizard, and the dragon sorcerer. The big exception is the warlock, but they don't have anywhere close to the burst damage/crowd control the other casters have (4 spells max in an encounter and a lower max level as well).

Foxit apparently needs an update that I am only discovering now, so I can't say whether or not there is something in Unearthed Arcana that adds to the corner cases.


Threeshades wrote:

A level 5 cantrip with two damage dice vs a level 5 martial's two attacks would on average be in favor of the martial.

First off, yes, the martial is less likely to get both attacks to hit, than the caster is to get its one cantrip to hit, but on the other hand the martial is also less likely to completely whiff all of its attacks. So where the caster deals its "full" damage every second turn, the martial deals "half" damage every turn.

Secondly a cantrip deals only its damage dice, so at level 5 you're at around 2d8 or 2d10 damage, unless you are a draconic sorcerer or a warlock with agonizing blast, or something similar, in which case you get your Ability modifier on that damage.
The martial gets their ability modifier twice: once on each attack. So a two-hand fighter comes at 4d6+6 (average 20) where the warlock rolls 2d10+3 (average 14)

The Warlock with Agonizing Blast (according to my reading) will get the stat modifier with each die - as according to the spell writeup, each die is a separate ray.

The whole gimmick with the warlock vs other casters seems to be higher floor, lower ceiling.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
In all fairness, I'm sympathetic to the notion that not every Congressperson needs to read every bill, that's insanity. That's why committees exist, so that our representatives can specialize, and rely upon one another to cover all bases. Especially when some bills can reach into the hundreds or thousands of pages, if they had to *personally* read them all they'd get nothing else done and we'd be upset about *that*. Nothing wrong with tasking a couple of interns and/or experts on the topic to give them a rundown.

That bills are running into routinely ridiculous page counts begs to question the necessity of doing so.

On major policy bills such as the Patriot Act and the Affordable Care Act that affect everyone, I'd rather that the Congresscritters actually read what they're voting on instead of listening to an intern. 'Experts on the topic' include lobbyists that are inherently biased, which seems counterproductive to obtaining objective views of legislation.

Pretty much no one read the Patriot Act which was ramrodded through on the shockwave from 9/11.
Yep. Which is my point: no one read it, only one voted against it. It really should have been read by the entirety instead of taking the assurances from interns et al that it was a good thing. Now ... blecch.
It wouldn't have mattered. the political reality that no one was going to vote against somemthing called "The Patriot Act" given the political landscape of the moment.

We need a gadfly senator who filibusters often - not the anonymous way, but plays the trollolol card by actually reading the bill as his filibuster.


Fouquier-Tinville wrote:
Pfft. At least Max opposed slavery.

Overwritten by the Terror. Many, many broken eggs in that one. No omelette in sight.

But I suppose I could have used Franklin or Adams instead of Washington.


Samy wrote:
If there was one thing that really was clear to me in the debate it's the fact that Trump is in power because of a protest movement. He repeatedly harped on the fact that how things have been done over the past 20 or 30 years isn't working. "You were in power -- why didn't you fix this?" "You've been doing it for 30 years -- it isn't working!" And so on. Hillary offers just more of the same, and even as a Hillary supporter, I agree with that. I don't see her as being a radical departure from what people like Obama have been doing. And there's a growing segment of the populace who really want radical change. Business as usual is ruining them and they're willing to grasp at any straw for some big, actual change.

That I understand - I just want some constructive change, not a demagogue who only tells me who to blame/hate or how great he is.

Washington was a good revolution, Robespierre was not.


Fergie wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Trump cheats -> Clinton is bad.
I love the reasoning. Everything has to feed back into how awful Clinton is.

I would frame it as Hillary accepted Trumps money, and they are booth dishonest grifters. Is it worse to bribe, or be bribed?

I look at the two, and see two crooks. Some people only see one crook.
To each, their own.

At least Clinton is an American crook. Manchurian Donnie has too much Kremlin Kash for me to ever vote for him.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Grey,

They did it in Marvel too.

Phantom,

THANK YOU!. I'm glad someone remember that, especially after the hell that Bobbi when through with Lincoln Slade.

Excalibur did it in Camelot 3000 as well (DC 12 issue series).

spoiler:
The resulting nuclear explosion took out an alien fleet.


I thought Argonaut was proportionally powerful to the opponent - basically, Bell gets a fighting chance no matter what. But it isn't assured.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
One thing Aesthetica had that I truly enjoyed is how the main character managed to always humiliate anyone who tried the abuse-kun approach, and made it more humiliating when they kept it up. I watched too many shows in a row with tsycho-tsuns to the point where seeing them suffer actually makes me happy.
He did that because he wanted to be the only one occupying that particular niche. He even stated it flat-out; I remember some line of his that went something like "No one, except me, is allowed to make such a pretty girl cry."

True, but I had watched 5 series (or parts of, to be honest) that featured the protagonist being beaten unmercifully for the yuks in rapid succession. I still am hoping to find an anime with an abusive girlfriend who gets jilted at the end solely because of how abusive she is - preferably with a damning 'reason you suck' speech to drive the point home.

I thought no one could be worse than Louise the Zero, then I saw Haruna from Is This A Zombie?


Alzrius wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:

Started watching testament of new devil.

So much cheesecake.

I truly love it.

I used to like it, but lost respect once I watched the writer's earlier series Aesthetica of a Rogue Hero.

He recycled so much from the first series into the second that if a different author had done so I'm pretty sure an infringement lawsuit could have been filed.

I think that it was a learning experience for the writer. I hated Aesthetica, but found Sister New Devil much more palatable.

One thing Aesthetica had that I truly enjoyed is how the main character managed to always humiliate anyone who tried the abuse-kun approach, and made it more humiliating when they kept it up. I watched too many shows in a row with tsycho-tsuns to the point where seeing them suffer actually makes me happy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:

Started watching testament of new devil.

So much cheesecake.

I truly love it.

I used to like it, but lost respect once I watched the writer's earlier series Aesthetica of a Rogue Hero.

He recycled so much from the first series into the second that if a different author had done so I'm pretty sure an infringement lawsuit could have been filed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If what the House says about Clinton is true and after all those investigations, hearings, and taxpayer money spent they still don't have anything concrete despite everyone 'knowing' how criminal she is, then they themselves are grossly incompetent by any objective measure.

I can't bring myself to vote for pathetic incompetents.


It's beginning to look as if Pathfinder has some sacred cows in need of being ground into hamburger of it's own.

The Big 6 being sacrosanct - anything that might threaten these is nerfed.

The almighty SUEmitar (AKA the Pathfinder Katana) - anything that might make a different finesse weapon equal to it must die, but doing anything to Dervish Dance is so far down the priority list it will probably never happen in our lifetimes.

If Fencing/Slashing Grace being on par with Dervish Dance is considered broken, then logic dictates that Dervish Dance must ALSO be broken.

Add in the fact that it often seems that a scalpel will never be used when they can break out the chainsaw instead and you have a recipe for customer dissatisfaction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:

Trump says Clinton could shoot someone and not get prosecuted.

Given that he's said basically the same thing about himself, I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Although he did say "This is what's happening to our country", so it seems to have been meant in a negative way... so it's okay and good when it benefits him, but bad if it benefits someone who opposes him...?

Seeing as how the Republicans in COngress have been after her for anything and everything, Trump's statement might actually be true, but not for the reasons he claims.

I've reached the point where I hear any Clinton allegations as "Wolf! Wolf! A wolf is eating the sheep!" more often than not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Shrug. Our shame democracy is little different then Russia's sham democracy.
This is so ignorant it makes my head spin.

Exactly - call me when candidates who might be a threat to the sitting Prez suddenly become criminals by decree. That's a big shift our 'sham democracy' would need to start doing to compare with Russia's sham.

Although if you live in a liberal city in an otherwise conservative state, you are forgiven for thinking our democracy is a sham - depending on how many laws in your city have been overturned by the state.


thejeff wrote:
Set wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Reminds me of the original Crisis in that sense.

Ditto, and since I ended up hating the results of Crisis, I don't really get warm fuzzies about this event either.

Heroes from other (now dead) universes having jumped ship and survived to join 'our' universe, while the millions, trillions, whatever people that they were supposed to be protecting all died screaming kind of bugs me. It bugged me in the '80s, when the only 'heroes' who went down with their ship was the Earth 3 Crime Syndicate, while Captain Marvel, Captain Atom, etc. skipped free of the destruction of their universes, and I'm not particularly fond of it happening again.

It took DC decades to undo pretty much all of the results of Crisis (some sooner than others, Supergirl was back almost immediately, the Multiverse later, first as 'Hypertime' and then, unapologetically, just back as the Multiverse, finally Barry Allen). I wonder how long it will take Marvel to undo the Incursions?

I'm not a fan of how it turned into a pissing match between the Black Panther and Namor, either, and how blowing up people's countries because you were pissed at them became a cool thing that super-heroes do, and then brag about.

Neither of them bragged about it - well, Namor might have, but he's always walked the line between hero and villain and he was well over on the villain side for this one. And those hostilities date back to AvX and both of them made efforts to avoid escalating.

But the whole series was about how far you would go to save what mattered to you. The war between their countries tied into that very nicely.

If I understood things correctly, pretty much everyone across the multiverse went down with their universe - or their earth. Some universes theoretically survived when their Earth was destroyed in an Incursion, though that concept seemed to get dropped by the end. The only survivors, as I understand it, were Doom, Strange and the Molecule man, and the two rafts - one from 616 and...

Well, putting the universe back together is a big job, even if you have the powers of the gods. For mortals trying to use those powers it's got to be even more difficult, and we aren't just trying to put one universe back together, but many.

There's bound to be a few mistakes. As many as the writers at Marvel think they can get a story out of.


Liz Courts wrote:
The Fourth Horseman wrote:

I find it odd that Paizo would highlight products on their front page that come from their biggest competition.

Probably just me. /shrug

The hobby gaming industry is not as big as people think, and many of us at Paizo have long-time friends in many different game companies—including Wizards of the Coast. Paizo's origin hails from the WotC periodicals department. A significant portion of the staff here grew up on Dungeons & Dragons, which shaped us to be where we are right now. Why would we not want to acknowledge the hard work of our peers in the industry for a successful game system?

From another standpoint, I think it's a dangerous assumption that gaming is a zero-sum situation. Different games work for different folks, but that doesn't mean that Pathfinder (or Dungeons & Dragons) is the *only* one you can play. For anyone that wants to be a game designer, it's dangerous myopia—you need to play many things to get a sense of how things are made.

A healthy game industry is good for all of us, from publisher to consumer—that's why we choose to highlight many different games on our website.

MY gaming group and it's rotating stable of GM's has one who won't go back to 3.anything after experiencing 5E, and another who tolerates it when he's a player but won't run anything other than Pathfinder.

Plus two others who run other games, one of whom returns to Pathfinder often (but is currently on a Sci-Fi kick) and another who is in love with Science-Fantasy games (that aren't Palladium - he isn't a fan of the system).


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Conservative Anklebiter wrote:
I wonder when you all are going to merge this into Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread.
In toto, I'm a Progressive Liberal. To the True Left, I'm considered too moderate at best, a collaborator & sell-out with the Right & NeoLibs at worst. Thus, I am Comrade Anklebiter's Enemy. :) There will be no merging until we have a Highlander-style reckoning.

Yeah...I wasn't aware that "Left of mainstream republican" = socialist...

By modern Republican standards, both Nixon and God (I'm referring to Ronald, not *THAT* one,) would be socialists.

I detailed a lot of the stuff Nixon is responsible for several pages back. You might think Obama and Bill are right wingers compared to what 'Tricky Dick' created. It's an impressive list.


Captain Yesterday, FaWtL 6 News wrote:
Five minutes has passed, do you know where Trump stands on immigration!

Let's check the charts!

rolls die...: 1d20 ⇒ 13

What's my result?


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Nicknames aren't the same as actual names. The ACA does not have his name on it. Go check, I'll wait.

Other than his signature, of course.

I don't know beyond that what you mean by "his name on it". For the original purposes of bringing it up, should he be appointed to the Supreme Court, he should recuse himself from any cases involving it.

Why? Because he signed it? That, besides being it's advocate is his only actual involvement in it. The name "Obamacare" is still in the main, one used only by news commentators, and Republicans who want to destroy it. For awhile it also went by Rommneycare as it's essentially identical to the system Mitch Romney put in when he was Governer.

By that logic, given that he was the Executor of all of U.S. policy, he'd have to recuse himself from anything involving the United States during his eight years as President. More if you're going to throw in his years as a Senator as well.

It's moot, because I don't think that Obama is either, a good Supreme Court candidate, nor is he interested in the job.

That's Mitt Romney - I know, spellcheckers often seem like spellbotchers nowadays, especially now that they are just 'correcting' things without asking.


I thought Ghostbusters was an unneeded remake, so I didn't watch.

But it wasn't as unneeded as Ben-Hur. The Heston version won something like ALL THE OSCARS that year. (I know that's hyperbole, but just go with it) If you want to remake something like that you had better be perfect or else. And 100 million fewer dollars later, here we are, discussing what might be the biggest bomb of the year.

Gone With the Wind doesn't need a remake either, Hollywood. Don't even try.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want someone who has worked as a public defender - enough of these solicitor/attorney general types. Let's get someone on the court who might have actually worked for people directly rather then just the government.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
phantom1592 wrote:
You can't put in 20 hour days building a successful empire AND routinely patrol for muggers all night.

This reminds me of the first page of a Wolverine issue when they made light of this type of syndrome. They had a panel for each day i.e. 'Monday', 'Tuesday', etc. showing him in Japan fighting ninjas one day, and on the moon with the Avengers the next, etc.

It was hilarious... at the time. :P

There was also a panel when Chuck Austen was writing X-Men of them all complaining at Cyclops's desk - Wolverine is saying that he appreciates the faith in him, but he can't be on every X-Man team at the same time!

Even the writers we often consider the worst come up with something good (or at least funny) from time to time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:

It is also part of "controlling the message", that has been the Right's media strategy for years now. Rush/Hanity/O'Reily/Coulture/ say some stupid ignorant hateful garbage, and the media talk about it for a day or two. Politicians on the right backtrack a little, and the Left is outraged. But the Right gets to have their message be the topic of discussion.

Trump has figured out how to be both the guy who says the crazy s!+&, and the politician who benefits.

Maybe someday the Left and media will figure it out and stop falling for it, but it has been going on for years now.

That's pretty much how Scott Walker has done his thing in Wisconsin.


Hitdice wrote:
Cole Deschain wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
I thought the whole problem with Black Widow was that she couldn't preform sexually; have I missed a step?
She can "perform sexually" just fine. She cannot, however, "perform" reproductively. And the fact that the distinction exists and is seen as meaningful is part of what is being thrashed out here.
Reproductively as compared to sexually, that's the step I missed. Thanks for the clarification.

I can only speak about the women I know have seen the film - none of them have fertility problems though. Not one even considered that Black Widow considered herself a monster because she couldn't have children, but thought she considered herself one because of her body count (a lot of 'red in her ledger' mentioned in the first Avengers film).

Of course, the women I know who have seen Age of Ultron also saw the first one, and all watched Agent Carter and connected the forced sterilization to Dottie being forced to kill her best friend (or be killed by her) as another cog in the 'form no attachments in order to be a better killer' regime of their training.

So the sample group I am familiar with is pretty limited.


Rednal wrote:
Trump says the media won't report on facts. USA Today kindly fact-checked his recent immigration speech.

That's because in Trump's odd little world, anything unfavorable to Trump isn't a fact, but a lie.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Grey,

I must have missed that. Was that before or after Civil War I?

6 issue limited series with major delays - Spiderman/Black Cat: The Evil That Men Do. First issue was in 2002, so the series started well before, although the massive delays put the final issues near or at the time it was going on.

1 to 50 of 2,948 << 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.