Let me jump to the end of this thread and save everyone some time:
The person/people with whom I disagree represent(s) unprecedented* evil -- double-plus-ungood, even -- and must be stopped at *all* costs. Anyone who disagrees is stupid/misguided/uninformed.
* I know this had been said every year since forever, but I it's really true this time. Trust me.
And Justin, you're demanding detailed design docs on the Internet (the existence of which would be a huge security breach) to prove the software is secure? Do you even understand how ludicrous you sound?
Here in 'Merica, we exercise our freedom to select an objectively inferior measurement system. And by select, I mean "remain too lazy to bother changing." :P
Besides, I'm pretty sure that metric system is Socialist. Think about it -- every unit of measurement is exactly 1/10 the size of the next larger unit. Talk about equality of outcome!
wicked cool wrote:
The tea party isnt about Rich people fighting. It looks like most are middle/lower class voters sick of their money being wasted and tired of being taxed.
I repeat: Revenue as a % of GDP is just about the lowest it has been in 60 years.
That's right: "Obama has raised taxes to records levels" is a bald-faced lie. So why all the anger just now, I wonder? Hmmm...
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
That's quite a chip you've got on your shoulder. Pray tell, what other "lessons" have I to learn, oh wise one?
For the record, I already pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than the so-called 1%. Or have you forgotten this already?
Not that it matters -- unlike the Tea Party, I understand that my taxes haven't gone up under Obama. That's right. Revenue as a % of GDP isn't high...it's actually just about the lowest it has been in 60 years. You know what else has been going down? The effective tax rates on the highest earners. In other words, we have a revenue problem.
But sure, the poor people are engaging in class warfare. Those jealous bastards. /s
Andrew R wrote:
Just got the notice today of what obamacare is doing to my health insurance. it is now covering several things I will never need and my cost is going up about 25%. Then add up how much my taxes will go up to pay for subsidies, thanks obummer
Obummer? Are you 12?
Edit: And you do realize that the president doesn't pass legislation, right?
ARGH! I simply can't wrap my head around the raging hatred of Obama. He's not a dictator, he's not a socialist, he's not the most liberal ANYTHING. He's RIGHT of center from a global perspective. Would it kill you people to read a book?
Stuffy Grammarian wrote:
D'oh. That's an embarrassing mistake.
And I would have gotten away with it, too, if not for that pesky Stuffy Grammarian!
Off the top of my head:
1. End the war on drugs. Immediately free all non-violent drug possession offenders.
But I'd also seek more revenue:
And, I get money out of politics. Or at least try:
According to wikipedia (I'd go straight to the source, but you know -- government shutdown):
In the 2012 fiscal year, $74.6 billion in food assistance was distributed.
In the same period, total federal outlays were $3795.547 billion.
We spent less than 2% of the budget on SNAP. It isn't breaking us.
Edit: According to feedingamerica.org, 76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person. Clearly those people should be working multiple full time jobs.
Eliminating SNAP entirely wouldn't "reduce a vast amount of our debt." But even if it would, are you actually advocating making the poorest among us solely bear the cost of balancing the budget? Because it sounds like you think people working only one full-time job aren't working hard enough.
I think a large part of the problem is money in politics. Unless you're independently wealthy, you can't wage a successful national campaign without massive fundraising. Basically, if you're aren't corrupt when you start, you damn sure will be by the time you get elected. We've essentially set up a system that weeds out many of the best qualified among us.
Rubber Ducky guy wrote:
Agreed. I just want us to balance the budget. As far as the how, I'd suggest both spending cuts and additional revenue. Despite what the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party would have you believe, the United States is not anywhere near record tax revenue as a % of GDP. Pretty middle of the road, actually.
But it would also be naive to say that there is no waste in the federal government.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
Unless you're trying to improve your health. Then, you need to put down the double-quarter-pounder with cheese and not order the extra large milkshake to go.
According to Google, starve means "suffer severely or die from hunger."
Improving one's diet and starving are not the same thing. They don't carry the same connotations. Likewise, there is a difference between saying the government needs to cut back and the government needs to starve. Almost anyone would agree with the former, but few with the latter.
How about this:
If you don't mean starve, don't say starve. It's confusing.
Right now network effects and PFS keep me playing Pathfinder, but I think the rules are too complex. It's just a question of time. Between a career, a spouse, and children, I just don't have hours to burn when other games do the same job in less time. Right now my choice for home games is Savage Worlds, but I'd like to give Fate a go...
And I am done.
But don't you get it? If you really, really don't like something, it's A-OK to shut down the government to stop it... and it isn't even your fault!
Or maybe stopping the ACA is a moral imperative for some people. Human trafficking? Really?
I'm not sure which position I find more frightening.
Justin Rocket wrote:
Good negotiating would start with trying to find out why you want to kill 50% of school children, then seeing if there is an alternative which will meet your needs and is something I can live with.
We already had the ACA negotiation. Or do you truly believe that holding routine functions of the government hostage to re-hashing ANYTHING SOMEONE DIDN'T LIKE...EVER is sane?
I know! Senate Democrats should just vote 'no' on funding the government until the House agrees to reverse the Bush tax cuts. By your logic, if the house won't negotiate, they're equally to blame! Or maybe the Senate should refuse to vote on anything at all until the House agrees to Medicare for everyone! Brilliant! /s
The PPACA was not part of the spending bill. The spending bill is being used as a last attempt to stop the PPACA through unprecedented strategy based on extortion.
And we think things are bad now? Imagine just how dysfunctional the government will become if the extortion is successful.
Justin Rocket wrote:
No, they aren't, because you omitted the implied "from that point of view" from the front of my incredulous response.
But whatever. If you truly believe both parties are equally to blame, nothing I say is going to open your eyes.
Justin Rocket wrote:
It looks to me like the responsibility for the failure to reach a solution fell on both parties.
With all due respect, it only looks that way if you aren't paying attention.
The Republican house tied funding the government to TOTALLY UNRELATED ACA demands. The blame for that lies squarely on them. For both parties to share the blame, the Democrats would have to be insisting on the repeal of the Bush tax cuts (or similar) before agreeing to fund the government.
One, and only one, party is choosing to hold funding the government hostage.
The right to bear arms is guaranteed by an Amendment to the Constitution. If gun control advocates can't work within the system to change that, too bad.
But the idea that the prevalence of guns in our society is unrelated to the prevalence of gun violence is laughably obtuse.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Don't get me wrong—choices do matter. But not as much, it turns out, as much as where you start. From the article: "Parental wealth has an influence above and beyond the three factors that sociologists and economists have traditionally considered in research on social mobility—parental education, income and occupation."
You have been successful in spite of humble beginnings. Great. So have I. Yet many others who worked just as hard, if not harder, than either of us haven't done as well. Frankly, the implication that people who are less successful than you are lazier, dumber, or less capable is insulting. Is FUGM really the message you want to send?
Funky Badger wrote:
Intervening in Syria because they've used the wrong kind of weapons to kill 1% of their victims seems obtuse in the extreme.
That isn't the argument. The argument is that allowing the use of chemical weapons without consequences is a Pandora's box. It isn't (just) what has happened, but what might happen.
Andrew Christian wrote:
That being said, magical help is required to solve the situation once so many saving throws fail and you want to resolve the situation without sitting around for minutes or hours.
Once Again: The. Rules. Do. Not. Make. That. Distinction. I like how you handle it...but that isn't the point.
The point is that you're denying any discretion to other GMs, while reserving it for yourself. If you don't understand why that's a problem, I can't help you.
Edit: Redacted as unnecessary.
Both involve a set of die rolls; both have a chance of failure. The only difference is the specific probabilities. If one is handwaving, then so is the other.
I'm sorry, but I'm trying very hard to see how this amounts to anything but "The rules are clear: There is no room for GM discretion in this case...unless your name is Andrew Christian."
Zombie Ninja wrote:
I second the need for more dwarven (arcane) casters.
Andrew Christian wrote:
I understand the frustration. But no, I don't think that anyone who knowingly breaks a rule is automatically someone the campaign is better off without. To me, that IS inviting people to leave, which I don't think is a good strategy. Obviously you're free to disagree. *shrug*
Edit: And again, for the record, I think Paizo is more than reasonable with the pricing of their PDFs, and with their rules for using supplementary material. I just think we could dial back what I perceive to be a "do it or leave" tone, especially coming from VOs. YMMV.