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

bugleyman's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter, 7 Season Star Voter, 8 Season Star Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 7,986 posts (8,104 including aliases). 80 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters. 17 aliases.


1 to 50 of 7,986 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Killer_GM wrote:
The debt went from 10 trillion to almost 20 trillion under Obama. Who are you kidding. That's the debt of all prior presidential administrations combined.

You keep switching between debt and deficit. The debt is up; deficits are going down, but projected to rise under Trump (assuming he does what he has said he plans to do).

Neither major party can reasonably claim to be fiscally responsible at this point.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
let's see the popular vote on that first.

That's not how the system works. One could argue that it should be, but we can't change the rules at halftime. :-/

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Turin the Mad wrote:
This could wind up 269-269.

...and then it goes to the House, where Trump wins.

The people have spoken. The election wasn't rigged. Trump didn't cheat. He won fair and square, and as much as I dislike it -- and boy, do I -- come January he's going to be our President. While I will never respect Donald Trump, it is imperative that we all respect the presidency and the legitimate authority granted thereby.

There will be times which we simply cannot compromise, but we can and must choose those battles carefully. We cannot allow ourselves to become a party of gridlock and knee-jerk opposition. When President Trump nominates a cabinet member or judge, we must provide a prompt hearing and vote. When president Trump speaks, we must listen respectfully. Let's not dwell endlessly on Trump University, or speak of impeaching the President without clear and convincing evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

We lost. That hurts. But if there is one thing America can't afford right now, it's a hundred and fifty million sore losers.

Disk Elemental wrote:
Tonight we have seen America's true face, and it's not the one I thought I knew. I'm not sure if this is an America I have, or desire, a place in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
]Yeah, you should really keep current with objective facts and actual history, Mr. Osborne.

Bad Pilbug! Don't feed the trolls.

Irontruth wrote:
It's no where near Trump's advocating voting in multiple states.

But as we know, when Trump says crazy @#$% he was obviously "joking."

Can't you take a joke? ;-)

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Latest Clinton conspiracy: The Clintons had Janet Reno killed.

CrusaderWolf wrote:
I think that's what I said? Apologies if I was unclear.

Nope...I didn't mean to imply otherwise. My comment wasn't directed at you.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Clinton is going to win the election.

The real question is will Dems get the Senate...

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Absolutely not. That isn't what happened, and thats why I cannot even consider voting republican, a party that's fighting a war against facts.

The young woman he's talking to was born here. She's worried that if she votes, it will flag her family (who are illegal immigrants)

Now, now. Context is clearly a liberal mirror-universe construct!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Woodford wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

I swear, Obama could say "I won't miss being president when it is time to step down" and it would get reported as "Obama says he won't step down."

Obama: "I won't...step down."

Exactly. After all, what else would one expect from a Kenyan Muslim who kidnapped his daughters?

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I swear, Obama could say "I won't miss being president when it is time to step down" and it would get reported as "Obama says he won't step down."

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Norman Osborne wrote:
At best, that was Obama making a very nebulous statement. Combined with CNN leaking debate questions to Hilary, the "mirror dimension" is the one where liberals don't have to bend over backwards trying to ignore the corruption running through their midst.

Ah yes...the moving goalposts. It's not about what Obama's about the debate questions. Or the e-mail. Or Benghazi. The problem is, any number of unsubstantiated allegations still add up to exactly zero.

In fairness, hammering on those allegations in an attempt to create the appearance of corruption does seem to be Trump's best hope at this point. After all, he certainly isn't going to win based on his qualifications.

Obama was clearly saying "if you -- as a citizen -- vote, there will be no repercussions for members of your household who may themselves be in the country illegally."

With Trump routinely saying actually crazy things, the temptation to feed the false equivalence narrative by twisting the president's words appears to be quite strong.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

How come so many people seem to believe that "Constitutional" secretly means "in accordance with my wishes"? :P

Rednal wrote:

Speaking of destroying things, the GOP has been threatening to impeach Clinton basically as soon as she's elected.

Any opinions on this?

Seems like the logical continuation of their recent scorched-earth policy.

Spastic Puma wrote:

So what is HRC really up to?

The destruction of America? That doesn't sound like it would fare well for her career. Money?

Bingo! She's out to DESTROY 'MURICA. Because...reasons. (Duh).

Seriously though, there is no shortage of really, really ugly stuff about HRC (and any who dare support her) out there. Misogyny is just the tip of the iceberg.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Clinton is a career politician, with all the baggage (and experience) that that implies.

Trump is a manifest misogynist, racist, and demagogue.

You don't have to love Clinto to realize that it is irrational to equate the two. Don't fall for it.

CBDunkerson wrote:

Best candidate name: Rocky Roque DeLa Fuente

We've got a dude named Schmuck.

This just in: Hillary puts on her pants....ONE LEG AT A TIME! *gasp*

I hereby predict the collapse of her campaign, followed by her (glorious) incarceration (we get only the best incarcerations, folks).

Any day now...

Sissyl wrote:
Whether more people actually voted for Gore or not is very far down the list of interesting results of the election.

Disagree. Of course most of us understand how the electoral college works, and yet we often still talk about the election as if the electoral college didn't exist. That's what I find interesting.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, technically we do know that Clinton is guilty of using e-mail.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Absolutely.. you can throw in as many villains as you want and and find evidence for.

But no matter how many you throw in, that does not absolve Nader for his part, unless you can prove that his influence on the vote total was a significantly neutral one, and that's a hard sell.

The thing I always find interesting about 2000 is that there is no debate that Gore got more votes than Bush, but both our electoral process and our judiciary ensured that the person who didn't get the most votes won. So...Democracy? :P

Jaçinto wrote:
Go watch the congressional hearing and form your own opinion rather than let people tell you your opinion.

...and here come the underhanded insults. I wish I were surprised.

Guilty-until-proven-innocent aside...when did we start talking about "real" liberals? Is there a decoder ring? :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
If everything was fine and dandy, why would they have considered it new and sufficient evidence to start investigating again?

Thank you for illustrating why we have the Hatch act.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
Actually, it does equal criminality. It's called negligence

Apparently the director of the FBI disagreed with you.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
Edit: The email thing has been re-opened because they keep finding more shady stuff.

Really? How do you now it is "shady?" Because apparently, not even the FBI knows. What they said amounted to "we're looking at some more e-mails." That's it.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The instructions for changing the toilet paper rolls at the Pentagon are probably labelled "confidential." It is literally the lowest level of classification possible.

Carelessness != criminality.

You know, I really expected a better October Surprise. We've already done e-mails to death.

Personally, I prefer the "Hillary Clinton is the most successful mass murder in U.S. history" story. Maybe Wikileaks could drop a bombshell about the Clintons having knives in their kitchen. Or something.

Captain Battletoad wrote:
You act like it won't just get worse after the election.

No doubt some people will rant on. I do hold out some hope, however, that society will pay less attention.

I see we're still playing "Hillary is so corrupt...because reasons" game.

Is it November 9th yet?

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
I am still waiting for Obama to close Guantanamo like he promised he would.


It's the Republican congress that won't let him! They've basically spent the last six years standing in a corner and stomping their feet.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

To some, Hillary Clinton is a criminal, period. It doesn't matter what she has or has not been convicted of...she's a criminal, period. If prompted, these people will often say that "others would have gone to jail if they did what she did."

Of course, that ignores the actual problem -- that the rich and powerful receive special treatment.

Normally because if they worked for the military or had a clearance they know people who DID go to jail or were prosecuted for doing the exact thing that Clinton did.

Clinton...and pretty much every other national politician ever.

What I'm saying is that the problem -- that the rich and powerful are treated differently -- is systemic, and not at all specific to Clinton. Yet somehow Clinton belongs in prison, while the people with an R next to their name...don't?

That's just a little more hypocrisy than I can stomach.

To some, Hillary Clinton is a criminal, period. It doesn't matter what she has or has not been convicted of...she's a criminal, period. If prompted, these people will often say that "others would have gone to jail if they did what she did."

Of course, that ignores the actual problem -- that the rich and powerful receive special treatment.

Scythia wrote:
Disproving the Sun Hoax

Definitely parody.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
@UnArcane: Posted that in the main thread earlier. XD And the answer is... professionalism. Weird Al has been making this kind of thing for a VERY LONG TIME, and I believe the other group with him specifically focuses on translating debates into song as quickly as possible. They might have even recorded some of it beforehand, and done the special effects, then picked the parts that matched the questions the candidates got.

Weird Al has more talent AND skill than most of the artists he parodies. His whole band does. They are fantastic in concert.

If there is one complaint I could level at Weird Al, it would be at his undying love for the polka. :P

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
On the other hand, the Mormons continue to excommunicate women for advocating equal rights. They continue to hold anti-equality postions for women, they discrimminate according to sexual orientation, oppose the rights to LGBTQ marriage, and deny the right of choice in matters of abortion. There have been an increasing enough of mass exodus events because of the continued repressiveness of Mormon church doctrine.

Absolutely no argument here. The organization has some very hateful points-of-view. I actually think the mass exodus events speak well oft he people leaving.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
And I'm pretty much equally skeptical of the beliefs of "mainstream" Christianity as well.

Oh hell yeah. I just often see them making fun of Mormon doctrine for being "crazy." Glass houses and all that.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Mormons tend to be better-educated, and they have a lot of experience with talk about religious bans (they used to be targeted by them). They're also twice as likely as evangelicals to say that immigration is good for the country. As I understand it, the bigotry Trump spouts makes them very uncomfortable—and unlike the majority of evangelicals, they don't tend to see that as an acceptable flaw in a candidate.

Agreed. The Mormons I've known have been friendly, respectful people.

And to be brutally honest, their beliefs are supported by exactly as much empirical evidence as are the beliefs of "mainstream" Christianity.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Majik Mouf wrote:
Seeing all you people jump all over that guy, slamming him left and right for nothing at all is making me want to vote for Trump just to spite you all.

Sadly, as pointless as that would be (as we have no way of knowing how you voted, or why), that is far from the worst reason I've seen someone give to explain voting for Trump.

Which, if you think about it, is really kinda scary.

Majik Mouf wrote:
This is why Paizo is (rightly) perceived as an liberal echo chamber.

Hey, we don't all have an entertainment -- sorry, "news" -- network devoted entirely to being our echo chamber. Some of us have to make do.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
All I know is thanks to Weird Al, I feel better about my life.

...and not just because of this election, either. Weird Al is the man.

Fergie wrote:

Here are some numbers.

Lots more on next page
Not sure if they broke it up by income, but from a quick glance, it looks like white men is the big Trump demographic.

EDIT: I suspect there is a big difference between being a registered Dem or Rep, and leaning toward one party or the other, especially in this election.

As it happens, he tends to win among white men without a college degree, but lose among those with a college degree.

Take that for what you will.

Rednal wrote:
And in what's probably the last of today's news, Trump didn't seem to do too well at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner (a common event for presidential candidates apparently involving a lot of roasting other people).

I'm 0% surprised...the man is a boor.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trump wants to stick it to the lowering their taxes? How brave of him.

Not that it matters; he's highly unlikely to win the election anyway.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

To me, the fundamental Libertarian point-of-view is "As few constraints on individual rights as possible." Which is sensible, but only with the caveat that "as possible" includes ensuring that the rights of others aren't violated.

As to whether the actual Libertarian party actually supports that idea, I cannot say. But nonsense about poisoning other people is just that: Nonsense. Murdering someone obviously violates their rights (hence my mention of "irrational extremes").

It is also possible my understanding of "Libertarian" is fundamentally flawed. :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Libertarian party strikes me as a fundamentally good idea taken to fundamentally irrational extremes. :P

Fergie wrote:
[Just kidding around Bugleyman. No offense intended]

None taken. I asked for it, and my tone was definitely pompous.

I just can't see how anyone can believe that Trump is "for the little guy."

Orfamay Quest wrote:
To be fair (although this is probably inappropriately even-handed), Trump is a businessman, and he has an obligation to his partners (and arguably to himself) to maximize his profits to the extent the rules permit.

Then he's doing a terrible job.

But point taken. He could act dramatically differently as president than he did as a CEO. But then there goes the whole "run the country like a business" mantra.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I see that Trump is still saying he'll do (help the working class) the exact opposite of what he has actually done (screw the working class...e.g. use Chinese steel, offshore jobs, use dodgy visas to avoid hiring Americans). That isn't really surprising. What's more surprising is that the working class still appears to believe him.


Dear working class:

News flash: Trump is going to lose. Lucky for you, his impending loss is in your best interest...whether you realize it or not.

You're welcome.


College-educated America

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
snip More militarization of the police He outright said he wants to EXPAND the illegal stop and frisk operations but only for THOSE PEOPLE. [stage whisper]you know. Minorities [/stage whisper]/snip

You do realize that police are funded locally?

What Trump wants and what he gets won't match up.

They might be funded locally, but they have to buy all those shiny military surplus weapons and equipment somewhere.

1 to 50 of 7,986 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.