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

Knight who says Meh's page

724 posts (865 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 724 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Trump Told Russians That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From Investigation


Did anyone else read this as soccer with guns?


GM Niles wrote:
Err. Charter Schools are public schools. They don't have any "admission"

Sorry. My mistake.


Wouldn't how much they charge for admission let them restrict themselves to the really rich neighborhoods?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting how a thread about Trump and Comey ended up being about the Democrats.


Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TiwazBlackhand wrote:

Is there some way I can change the title of the thread from "Quick Slashing Grace Question" to "Incredibly Contentious Flame War Starting Slashing Grace Question"?

That's pretty much implied by posting it in "rules forum."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, what else is going on in DC?


GM Niles wrote:

I know all about Title 1 man...I'm a school administrator at a 78% low SES school. We also are the #7 school in the state for test scores.

If I lost every penny of Title 1 money tomorrow(We get about 130k/year), I think we'd feel it in test scores a little, but we wouldn't drop very far.

@Pan I tend to agree with you that the "for profit" model rankles me a little, but if the schools are performing and the students are learning I don't see the harm.

Charter schools


Who else is not surprised this thread is still going?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
It's still amazingly cheep to bribe Lobby democrats. On a lot of issues they're getting paid donations that total less then the republicans. While ending gerrymandering would probably get rid of those extreme republicans, it's not much of a solution to money in politics.
I love how the assumption here is that if Democrats are getting less money, it's because they're cheaper to bribe, rather than just being bribed less.
Well if the lobbyists are getting the same result with less money what else could you conclude?
Only if you agree they're getting the same result. A conclusion you appear to reach because you don't like either result. It seems clear to me that the results aren't the same - either as far as their effects on me and mine or for the donor class.
So take fracking then, is the ground water less contaminated if it's done under Democrats?

Yes


The First Amendment: Constitutionally Protected Speech

Quote:
The rights of citizenship do not stop at the ballot box. Freedom of speech includes the right to devote resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports. We oppose any restrictions or conditions that would discourage citizens from participating in the public square or limit their ability to promote their ideas, such as requiring private organizations to publicly disclose their donors to the government. Limits on political speech serve only to protect the powerful and insulate incumbent officeholders. We support repeal of federal restrictions on political parties in McCain-Feingold, raising or repealing contribution limits, protecting the political speech of advocacy groups, corporations, and labor unions, and protecting political speech on the internet. We likewise call for an end to the so-called Fairness Doctrine, and support free-market approaches to free speech unregulated by government.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quote:
That would be nice. I'd love a constitutional amendment to get money out of politics as well.
And I'd like a pony. preferably a flying one.
Well the state houses aren't nearly as bought as the senate and congress, why would it be so hard to get the state houses to call for a nation convention? It's never been used but it's possible. I mean most people hate the corruption and two-thirds of the states seems possible.

It's possible and it's absolutely terrifying.

Whatever your theory on state houses being less bought, Republicans currently control nearly enough states to call such a convention and ratify anything it produced. Any such convention would produce a Republican wishlist - likely enshrining corporate free speech, freedom to discriminate in the name of (Christian) religion, voter suppression, "small government", etc, etc.
I'm sure ALEC and the Koch brothers have an outline all ready to go.
You're assuming that conservatives are the same at all levels of government. That they're all cool with legalized bribery. I have a hard time believing that.

It was in the Republican Party platform.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Oh, hey, Roger Ailes passed.

The first presidential candidate he worked with was Richard Nixon. The last presidential candidate he worked with was Donald Trump.


Quote:

so Obama's numbers are automatically fake and trumps numbers are automatically real?

That makes no sense.

I mean, if you already believe that Trump has had any meaningful effect on the economy and unemployment, is it really that difficult to believe?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Robert Mueller appointed special counsel


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Grey_Mage wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Grey_Mage wrote:

Different or alternative... Does it matter? If we only engage in conversation with those who are of the same political mindset as us it is effectively self-imposed intellectual segregation.

If you only know your side of an argument you don't even know that.

We value diversity in everything but thought. I welcome you to my world anytime. Please wipe off your shoes before entry (i.e be respectful).

As a guest in your world, can ask what Trump has done to make you believe that he is in any way going to lessen the debts passed on to our children? That's a laudable goal, but I can't think of one thing he's done to bring it about.

GDP projections for current quarter are estimated at 4%. Obama achieved 3% in 1 quarter throughout his 8 years.

Unemployment rate is 4.7% and dropping.

Illegal immigration border crossing is down between 75 and 85%. This is not a racial issue so much as people come for the opportunity this country creates and pays for via law enforcement, anti-cronyism laws, medical benefits and so forth.

The numbers are coming in. Have faith, but you wont see them presented in the mainstream media, just like you never saw how Obama administration specifically recalculated the reported unemployment rate to artificially inflate his numbers.

Specifically, what did Trump do? He set the agenda. Executive orders and ongoing ACA legislation.

The fact that you are, I think, being absolutely sincere just makes me sad...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Grey_Mage wrote:
Different or alternative... Does it matter?

Yes. Living in an alternate reality can dangerous. Trying to run a country in an alternate reality can be catastrophic.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Not different. Just alternative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All Trump did was ask the FBI director to stop an investigation into one of his staff members and then fired the FBI director when he refused to stop said investigation. I mean, it's not like Trump accidentally ran into Comey at an airport and talk about his grandchildren. That would be bad...


I love the new republican motto.

"If that's true, then it's very bad."
Trump 2020!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
The White House is disputing this, of course - but given its total lack of credibility, I'm not sure how many people are going to accept anything they say about it.

Well Trump is just so busy you can't expect anything they say to be accurate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Trump revealed classified information to Russia


Guy Humual wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:


Good job, bong smokers
Well exactly who were they supposed to vote for if you wanted the decriminalization of marijuana? Private prisons and big pharma have bought both parties.
The democrats
Thanks to Sanders. Obama kicked the can down the road, calling for more studies, and it's nice that now, while they're out of power, they're calling for things that are decent and humane, we'll have to wait and see if any of these promises are kept once the Democrats are back in office.

I'm not sure if you understand what powers the president has...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:


Good job, bong smokers
Well exactly who were they supposed to vote for if you wanted the decriminalization of marijuana? Private prisons and big pharma have bought both parties.

The democrats


How willfully blind do you have to be to see this is bad for Trump and republicans?

You have reporters asking did the Vice President lie to America or did the President lie to him and the response is the President is too busy for his representatives to be accurate!?
The White House just said none of the President's surrogates are to be trusted from here on out. This is how you want the government to run?


Guy Humual wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


It's not a strawman at all. He pointed out that people in the PNW held a deep seated hatred of the Clintons as part of his argument for why she lost the election, based on a single issue that was relevant to the PNW.

Did she lose the PNW? No, she didn't. So it seems like an issue that didn't cost her Oregon and Washington is probably not the reason she did lose Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

Unless you want to claim at voters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan cared even more about the spotted owl than voters in Oregon and Washington.

Trump voters had a median income of $71,000, while Clinton voters income came in around $56,000.

Based on that, which group do you think is more motivated by economic distress to pick a candidate?

Just so we're clear: your argument is that ALL of Donald Trump supporters are racist and sexist. You're rejecting the very notion that people could have voted for Trump for any other reason?
Nope, that isn't my argument.

then why are you arguing? Our point is not that none of the republican supporters are sexist and racist, our point is that there are many other reasons why people might have supported the Cheeto, and marijuana and spotted owls could have been two of those reasons. There well may have been a bong smoking, owl hating Trump supporter in Oregon, who was never going to vote for Hillary if she promised him ice cream and blow jobs.

I'm sure there's lots of sexist & racist Trump supporters. That wasn't what we were arguing though.

Good job, bong smokers


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's an incompetency of arrogance. Trump has never been held accountable for any of his actions up to now. Why would he care how it looks or what the ramifications are? He thinks he'll get away with it because he has always gotten away with everything.


Rednal wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump also said he was going to fire Comey regardless of any recommendations and that he is not under any investigation, just his presidential campaign.

Of course, accepting this means being willing to accept that Trump might be telling the truth.

At best - and I do think this is unfortunate - he's the old man who cried wolf.

Regardless of who you think is telling the truth (if anyone), it contradicts everything that was said about Comey's firing up to now. The part about the investigation not being about him but rather his campaign is just utter nonsense.


Trump also said he was going to fire Comey regardless of any recommendations and that he is not under any investigation, just his presidential campaign.


In the Lester Holt interview airing tonight, Trump says Comey asked for a dinner with him to ask Trump to let him keep his job. Trump said he would think about it and then asked Comey if he was under investigation.

Sounds like straight up blackmail to me. "If you want to keep your job, then don't investigate me."


Fearing anti-semitism, American Jews reclaim German citizenship
From the article

Quote:
And also, a sort of plan B — something to keep in his back pocket amid what he calls an increase in the acceptance of hate speech here in the U.S.

But please, everyone, keep it civil...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Jesse Heinig wrote:
It plummeted right after.

That is the Clinton legacy in a nutshell.

I will happily concede that Clinton was better then Reagan and both the Bushes, however they all played important parts in preventing economic gains from being enjoyed by anything other then the wealthy.

Clinton presided over some of the most massive deregulation of Wall Street. He also signed free trade agreements that cost the working class tremendously, while also benefiting the rich tremendously. He kicked millions off welfare, and helped put millions in prison. The tech bubble itself was one of the largest transfers of wealth to the 1% the world has ever known.

Don't get me wrong. I think Clinton was better then Reagan and Bush. Reagan/Bush deserve more of the blame for the declines and stagnation. However, both parties were pushing many of the same economic policies, and while most folks on the 'Left' seem cognizant of how bad those policies were when done by Republicans, they seem all to willing to defend the same things from Dems.

I just skimmed the article, but it seems a good summary of these issues from a source that is friendly many Democrats:
Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more
Robert Reich

And the fact that Clinton had a republican controlled congress is irrelevant..


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Reporter arrested for "yelling questions"
I don't think anyone thought that the persecution of reporters was going to stop once Trump got into office. If anything this is going to get worse.

It was actually a campaign promise.


Cosmo wrote:
Removed several ad hominem attacks and their responses. Keep it civil or this thread will be closed.

Just want to be clear on this. Being racist is okay but calling out racism is not?


Trump fires Comey


I had a game recently where I played a hunter. Over the course of an entire game session, my hunter never rolled over a five and my animal companion never rolled below a fifteen. I guess that technically averages out but it was certainly frustrating.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
How on earth do you not conclude that you've been duped about the laws intent at this point?

It's not the conclusion he wants to reach.


jeuce wrote:

Meanwhile, Republicans are passing laws to suppress minority voters

I still don't understand what these laws are? The ID laws?

Does targeting minorities with "surgical precision" count?


I think someone else already pointed this out but I'm pretty confident calling Trump voters racist and sexist.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:


People need to stop assuming that votes that go to a third party candidate would naturally go to a main party candidate.

I'm pretty sure its a natural fit there.
Generally its only people who vote main party who believe that. Fairly few people who vote third believe that way.
Yeah if you're already throwing away your vote on a third party candidate it's probably not too far a leap to just not vote at all.
Sometimes I wonder how people could get the idea that Democrats are elitist, smug, and out of touch.

Just poorly informed would be my guess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
I may be wrong (the senate has incredibly byzantine rules) but I don't think they can bypass the filibuster (short of the nuclear option) because of the massive tax cut in the house bill. So I don't see this particular bill ever becoming law. I don't know if they will keep trying in the future. While I certainly do not want this bill to pass, I think the downside is that none of the republicans who voted for will face any fallout from their vote if the bill does die in the senate.
Locally i think walden is going to get kicked in the testicles for his support of it, even if it doesnt pass. He's been ducking town halls full of angry constituents.

Unfortunately American voters have a very short memory. Without actually being affected, I don't think many will remember a year or two from now.


Ryan Freire wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:


People need to stop assuming that votes that go to a third party candidate would naturally go to a main party candidate.

I'm pretty sure its a natural fit there.
Generally its only people who vote main party who believe that. Fairly few people who vote third believe that way.

Yeah if you're already throwing away your vote on a third party candidate it's probably not too far a leap to just not vote at all.


I may be wrong (the senate has incredibly byzantine rules) but I don't think they can bypass the filibuster (short of the nuclear option) because of the massive tax cut in the house bill. So I don't see this particular bill ever becoming law. I don't know if they will keep trying in the future. While I certainly do not want this bill to pass, I think the downside is that none of the republicans who voted for will face any fallout from their vote if the bill does die in the senate.


The problems they were having in the house was that the bill didn't hurt enough people for the freedom caucus to vote for it. If the senate passes a toned down version (which I'm not sure they can) then you run right back into the same problems with the house. I'm not sure the senate even wants to pass it. Complaining about what the black guy did is a lot different than actually taking away health insurance from 29 million people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
Yup. The fact that people can argue about anything doesn't mean that everything is worth arguing about.

I disagree, precisely by arguing one proves it has value and may I dare importance.

On a side note since this topic seems to be not moving forward, swarm can deal their damage with each move, thus twice a round since they have two moves.

Do you have a link that proves this? I've found that a swarm attack deals automatic damage but it's still an attack (swarm attack) and as such can't happen twice without spring attack. Furthermore it says swarms attack at the end of their move. Move being singular and end being the finality of movement.

I found these 3 things disagree with the idea a swarm moves and then attacks twice. Not did I find compelling evidence that being mindless eaters they would move on from a body they could still eat. Even if they could why not run over a character then move again 10 feet to run him over again? Would that not feed a swarm twice?

I don't think your statement is factual. But if you have some sort of evidence I would love to learn.

I believe that might have been a joke in reference to this thread.


MMCJawa wrote:
I'll also chime in with a plead to watch the tone and words people use here. I know today was a...dramatic day in politics (I have three close friends who will be negatively impacted by the healthcare act that went through), but for the most part I think we have done a fair job of having a reasonable discussion. I would be very very sad if the moderator hammer came down here.

They barely got it through the House. I don't see how they plan to get it through the Senate. Honestly I'm not sure if this was purely for optics so they could finally say they're doing something or if Trump legitimately doesn't understand how a bill becomes law and actually thinks he accomplished something today.


bugleyman wrote:
Atavar wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
...I have absolutely no doubt that is now time -- hell, past time -- to leave. This country is done.
B'bye!

Another faux patriot that has apparently never heard of brain drain. Oh well, you'll figure it out eventually.

Neither of your attitudes are particularly helpful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Democrats lose from not focusing on race and from focusing too much on race.


Cantriped wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
You don't experiment when cooking? I'm guessing you don't cook that much.
Oh no, I am a terrible cook. Unlike with Table-Top RPGs, I don't have the interest to learn the recipes or the patience to follow the directions. So I stick with simple things that aren't ruined by my lack of expertise. Much like some people choose to stick to simple games which cannot be ruined by their lack of expertise.

I would say the way you view both cooking and Pathfinder is inherently flawed. I would also say take a cooking class it's actually quite interesting.

1 to 50 of 724 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.