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. 7,746 posts (7,863 including aliases). 79 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


1 to 50 of 7,746 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

While it is -- by definition -- true that all illegal immigrants are criminals, that's not a very useful distinction. By such a binary standard, literally everyone you know is a criminal. I'm not terribly concerned about people whose only crime is circumventing our broken-by-design immigration system. I can promise you I would do the same in their place.

As for racism...this so-called criminality doesn't explain the anger directed against illegal immigrants. Misguided economic resentment from the less sophisticated is a part, sure, but even that doesn't explain why Hispanics are nearly always singled out (in Trump's case, as "rapists" and "murderers"!).

Hell, given our demographic prospects, the United States should just let any healthy person under the age of 30 who is not guilty of any meaningful crime into the country legally, and then tax their wages. Problem solved.

P.S. I also just fixed Social Security. You're welcome. ;-)

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to wonder if we all share some responsibility for Trump's viability as a candidate. Has daily political discourse become so hyperbolic that words like "fascist" and "criminal" have lost any real meaning?

Opposition to things like racism, sexism, and demagoguery should be non-partisan. :(

Ah, but who PAID for that wall? :P

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
On the right, it's all about scapegoats - you're worse off and it's all because of the lazy blacks living off your tax money and the illegals taking your jobs and the gays doing something or other.

LOL. The racism and xenophobia I "understand." But what DO people imagine homosexuals have to do with their economic marginalization?

Scott Betts wrote:

Yeah, it's not a happy time to be a conservative in America (or just about anywhere, for that matter). If you put yourself in their shoes, things are pretty bleak and have been for a while. The world at large doesn't put up with them and their beliefs anymore. Where they were once at least tolerated, they're shamed and marginalized instead. I'm sure they feel like their zone of comfort is rapidly shrinking around them, and I'm sure that's scary as hell to a lot of conservatives.

None of this is to say they don't deserve the experience they're going through. They absolutely do deserve it. But it's easy to understand why they're angry, why they're frustrated, why they feel like nothing is going their way, and why they want someone capable of throwing a punch in their name, even if it's just punching a metaphorical wall.

I wish I shared your apparent optimism about the strength of that wall. ;-)

I've always thought the main shortcoming of the entire pawn line is lack of sufficient pawns for low-level, common monsters that come in groups. Orcs, skeletons, dire rats, etc.

Don't get me wrong; I appreciate that there are limited slots, but a single extra sheet of carefully-selected creatures would have increased the utility of the Bestiary Box immensely.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
Michael Steele: Hillary Clinton is "absolutely qualified" to be president.

My immediate reaction is to ask why the republicans aren't nominating nominating Micheal Steele. At least in that interview, he comes off as a rational, articulate, and respectful man. In other words, the opposite of Donald Trump.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Trump understands very little, including the fact that he was born on third base (if not directly on home plate).

...or maybe he does, and he's a cynical evil genius. However, if that is the case I have no idea why he wants to be president.

Gisher wrote:
They spent three days denying that the obvious plagiarism had occurred, calling the media crazy for stating the obvious, and then falsely accusing the Clinton campaign of creating the entire controversy. To my knowledge the Trump campaign hasn't actually referred to this as plagiarism and hasn't apologized to Michelle Obama, the media, the Clinton campaign, or the American people. Credit is not yet due.

Hey, I didn't say it was a LOT of credit. You appear to have much, much higher expectations of this man than I do. :)

Gisher wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

Well, that could have been much easier. But at least they owned up, so credit where credit is due.


Yes, really. Or would you prefer Trump had continued in insult our intelligence with (this particular) bald-faced lie? :P

Well, that could have been much easier. But at least they owned up, so credit where credit is due.

thejeff wrote:

Well, I'd probably do similar things. But I'd be motivated more by the direct effects those taxes and those spending and policy would have on our country and economy than by worries about the debt

If you can't trust politicians to invest the borrowed money wisely, you also can't trust them to spend the taxed money wisely. And yet not letting the government spend money at all is disastrous.

The US is in the advantageous position of borrowing in US dollars. We can't hit that liquidity crisis. We can always make the bond payment (unless the government decides not to, but that speaks more to political dysfunction than anything else.) If nothing else, we can print money and hand it over. The threat is hyperinflation, but you won't get that if your borrowed money is actually growing the economy.

First, because I love moving targets, I substantially edit my post. Sorry.

Second, countries rarely borrow money because they think they won't be able to pay it back. Investment by definition involves risk. I'd sleep better knowing we had a modest debt than one that could blow up in our faces with one or two bad political cycles.

thejeff wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

P.S. punctuation marks always go inside quotation marks. :)

It's a rule I'm happy to break. If it's in the quotation marks, it should be part of the quote, not something I've added.

Most obvious with question marks: Who said "Brevity is the soul of wit?"

Hmmm...upon looking this up, I was mistaken. It is only periods and commands that always go inside quotation marks.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure. In theory, one should always borrow as much money as possible as long as one can earn a higher return on the money than what is paid in interest. In practice, it doesn't matter what the expected rate of return is if you encounter a liquidity crisis. All the bridges in the world won't matter if we miss a bond payment.

If I had my druthers I'd up the capital gains tax, the corporate tax rate (which, despite what you may have heard, isn't anywhere near the "highest in the world."), and the social security tax ceiling. I'd also quash offshore tax shelters. Then I'd invest the resulting windfall in education, infrastructure, and paying down debt. I'd also ramp down military spending, and release pretty much the entire non-violent prison population as quickly as feasible.

thejeff wrote:
Nor does the Libertarian Party combine "actual fiscal responsibility and individual liberties".

I'm not saying I agree that it does. Their beliefs, however, seem to have the virtue of not being inherently contradictory, unlike the Repulican Party's (Get government out of our lives...but ban euthanasia!) YMMV.

P.S. punctuation marks always go inside quotation marks. :)

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Niles wrote:
Man, if only there were a party that combined actual fiscal responsibility and individual liberties.

If only there were a VIABLE party. The only way Libertarians become viable in a two-party system is by replacing the Republicans.

Can we get on with that already?

3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Donald trump is the ontological manifestation of the republican party, the quintessential modern republican made flesh.

It's a party devoted to making the rich richer

It's a party devoted to the false narrative that the rich are richer because they're harder working, more moral, and all around better than poor people so that we can make the rich richer. Pretend that they were born not rich and just got a "small" 10 million dollar loan from dad, followed up by dad giving him the entire company. It's entirely a coincidence that Donald Trump is a billionaire real estate mogul who's father just happened to be... a billionaire real estate mogul.

It's a party devoted to to the idea that poor people are poor, lazy, and stupid because helping them would cost the rich money, and to convince the middle class that their money is going down instead of up. Don't mind the billions of dollars of tax payer and retirement fund dollars I'm skimming here, that black welfare mother has cookies!

It's a party built around the idea that government is bad, because government gets in the way of rich people being richer. Except those parts of big government that help the rich get richer, like the military, corrupt business practices hiding behind bankruptcy laws, and eminent domain, those are fine.

It's a party that needs irrational hate, anger, and fear to survive because its ideas die under any kind of rational scrutiny and minorities of all types make a great scapegoat.

It's a party that's anti science, anti fact, anti reason, and anti media because all of these point out what a pile of horsefeathers their policies are.

They made this orange monster. It was inside them entire time. that thin layer of skin hiding it was going to rip eventually.

Donald trump is the candidate the republican party deserves, and the candidate it needs to start taking a good look at, because its a pretty damned accurate mirror.

I literally couldn't have said it better myself. And if you know me, you know that's painful thing for me to admit. ;-)

thejeff wrote:
And as CBDunkerson said, the plagiarism was the high point of the night. Many of the original speeches were far worse. If anything the furor over the plagiarism just distracts from the real problems.

Sure, but those real problems are nothing new. I think the plagiarism is important because it is a very simple and clear-cut case of the campaign engaging in a bald-faced lie.

Then again, this really wouldn't be the first time, would it?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
Trump's whole campaign has been based on doing outrageous things and refusing to apologize for them. I'm not surprised that they would double down on a lie.

True. Why risk honesty at this point?

Rednal wrote:
Personally, my guess is that a scriptwriter had copied the text from other speeches - maybe to analyze it, see what they could pluck out without SOUNDING like they plucked it out - and accidentally left it in because they got distracted.

Quite possibly. But at best that makes the plagiarism inadvertent.

In any event, if that is what happened, they should just say that, instead of doubling down on an obvious lie.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Coincidence. It's a thing.


But this isn't it.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So all the usual suspects are now simply denying there was any plagiarism. Textbook big lie.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sadly, this won't make a difference to Trump's supporters. Anyone still drinking the Kool-Aid at this point is already a lost cause.

CrystalSeas wrote:

She rickrolled everyone, as well

"If you want someone to fight for your country, I assure you, he is your guy. He will never give up. And most importantly, he will never let you down."

Wait, for real?

The DNC must have a mole on Trump's speech writing team.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gisher wrote:

The most amazing thing about this is that she plagiarized the "values and morals" part of her speech.

I wonder how all of those convention attendees feel now that they know they were cheering and clapping for the words and ideas of Michelle Obama. Considering how the right has demonized her, I bet some wish they could bleach their brains.

The way Michelle Obama has been demonized is indefensible. But as for the convention attendees, I doubt that they have any idea the speech was plagiarized, let alone from whom. Head in the sand, and all that.

Plus, it's just the "liberal media" at it again.

So, it seems the attempt to change the rules of the game have failed: /index.html

...just as they should have. As much as I believe Trump to be a dangerous extremist, I can't see how anyone thought that explicitly ignoring voters was a good idea.

Fergie wrote:
I would vote for someone who represented my interests, not the .01%. I should point out that in many other democracies around the world, this would not be unreasonable, or even out of the mainstream.

Nice dodge, but you didn't answer: Whom, specifically, would you vote for if you lived in a swing state?

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Hillary (and Obama) talk a strong leftist game, but they play their hand for the interests of the rich.

You know what goes hand-in-hand with being 100% ideologically pure? Being 100% ineffective.

Fergie wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

That's all well and good, but the it OVERWHELMINGLY likely that either she or Trump will be the next president. The practical reality is you can cast a potentially meaningful vote for the lesser of two evils, you can cast a meaningless protest vote, or you can abstain altogether.

The last two increase the chance that the greater of two evils wins.
As I have mentioned before, I live in New York, which is about as much of a democratic safe state as you can get. If NY is even close, the republican has won by a landslide. As I have mentioned before, I live in New York, which is about as much of a democratic safe state as you can get. If NY is even close, the republican has won by a landslide. My vote for Hillary or Trump is absolutely meaningless. I don't think anyone who is aware of the electoral college could disagree. I could vote for a third party candidate, but that is problematic, as has been previously discussed.

Hence my use of the word potentially.

What, if I may ask, would you do if you lived elsewhere?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
If you're looking to get things done, though, I encourage you to consider that democratic politics is fundamentally about compromise, and acknowledging that it's okay to not be happy with every outcome associated with the politicians that you support, but to still support them anyway because they remain the most practical path to accomplishing what you want accomplished.

Well said, Scott.

Personally, I'm going to miss Obama.

Fergie wrote:
I could go on, but I think everyone gets the idea. Hillary does not share my values, nor do I consider her progressive, liberal, or even a leftist. There is no way I would EVER vote for her to "represent" me.

That's all well and good, but the it OVERWHELMINGLY likely that either she or Trump will be the next president. The practical reality is you can cast a potentially meaningful vote for the lesser of two evils, you can cast a meaningless protest vote, or you can abstain altogether.

The last two increase the chance that the greater of two evils wins.

Rosita the Riveter wrote:
The way I see it, the House isn't going Blue...

I was under the impression that was a real possibility?

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When it comes down to it, expecting one person -- even the POTUS -- to fix everything is silly.

The system is broken. That doesn't change the fact that the 2016 presidential election is binary. Even if Clinton is as corrupt as people claim (I'm not sure she's any worse than your typical politican, but that's another thread), Trump is so glaringly unfit to be president I'd vote for just about *anyone* else.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:

Requiring a 'balanced federal budget' is itself inherently 'irresponsible'. You need to be able to borrow to deal with economic slowdowns, natural disasters, wars, et cetera.

At that, so long as the economy is growing faster than loaned interest you are better off using debt to leverage growth.

All that being said... for the past ~50 years Democrats have consistently decreased the deficit while Republicans have consistently increased it. Thus, claims of no difference between the parties on this issue fly in the face of the data.

I don't believe anyone said "requiring." I appreciate the value of deficit spending during a downturn.

However, when the national debt is getting to a worrying % of GDP -- which it is here in the U.S. -- balancing the budget needs to be on the table. What I'm saying is neither major party has any credibility on that front.

As for the Democrats decreasing the debt and the Republicans increasing it...I"m not sure exactly what that means. Democratic Administration? Democratic Congress? Both? And I say this as a Democrat...

2 people marked this as a favorite.

How anyone can consider either major party in the U.S. to be responsible when it comes to spending is beyond me.

Neither party is serious about balancing the budget, because balancing the budget is going to be painful. Much easier to kick the can.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Politics are largely a matter of compromise, so Sanders endorsing Hillary is just another compromise.

Functional politics are definitely a matter of compromise. Of course, when one believes that all government is bad, there is no incentive to compromise. Dysfunction is good, because it proves you were "right."

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Whether you have 10,000 electors or 500,000, as long as the winner is the person with the most votes, third parties will simply split the vote and more or less a loss not only for themselves but for the party from whom they split the most votes. This is well enough understood in political science to have a name ("Duverger's Law," which see).

Oh hey, look...I learned something new today. Thank you. :)

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Republicans need to oust the "no compromises" fringe if they want to remain relevant.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The reality -- unpleasant though it may be -- is that a vote for Gary Johnson is wasted. I can only hope that Johnson peels off more potential Trump voters than Clinton voters.

As far as I can tell, Trump is the Joker: He just wants to watch the world burn.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
I think the 4th Amendment died with all the PATRIOT act type stuff after 9/11. This is just poking the bloated corpse with a stick.

Good point.

There's an amazing difference between what we are and what we claim to be.

R.I.P. Fourth Amendment.

Katina Davis wrote:

So sorry we missed this thread! I've taken a look, and the pawns in the Beginner Box are all medium-sized except for the few Large monsters. No smaller pawns for lil' guys like goblins. And there are no markings to denote that they are from the Beginner Box.

I hope this helps! Please let me know if there are any further questions or concerns that you may have and I'll be glad to help out.


Yup; just what I wanted to know. Thanks!

Arufets of Canada wrote:
Once I have mine I'll make a note if someone else doesn't.


No one who has received the latest printing of the Beginner Box is willing to comment, eh? :-/

anneth42 wrote:

Just got mine today.

Thank you and I have been nothing but impressed with how all of this has been handled.
Keep up the good work!

I appreciate the updates and info as they came out.

Out of curiosity, does the newest printing have different sized pawns for small creatures (goblins, etc.), and do the pawns have a symbol to indicate they came with the BB?

Thanks! :)

the Haunted Jester wrote:
I doubt the pages are as thick as the Core Rulebook which may help in the longevity of the product.

I dunno...thickness of the book overall looks the same in the pictures.

Interesting question. Even though it may mean going to print with "outdated" copies of the pocket edition, perhaps they'll keep the reprints based on hard-cover stock? Or maybe potentially introduce a new printing whenever the stock of either version runs out?

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My guess is that it will be modestly successful and not really affect Pathfinder much.

But of course that's just that...a guess.


Adamantine all the way.

1 to 50 of 7,746 << 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.