dmchucky69's page

If the President had endorsed this 1 or 2 years ago instead of simply to help his numbers during an election cycle I would have been impressed. Now I am simply disgusted. And the media and the Left don't see this as what it is? Amazing.

We see exactly what this is: The President deciding that the political climate has progressed far enough that he can offer public support for gay marriage without dooming his chances of re-election. If the President had voiced this support three years ago, the conservative backlash might have carried through even stronger, and led to his defeat in November. A President who supports gay rights is great, but I'd rather have a two-term President who gets around to supporting gay rights a little later than a one-term President who support gay rights from the get-go and then gets defeated, leaving us with four years of GOP leadership. Obama came forward with this as soon as he felt he could (or, perhaps, a couple weeks earlier given Biden's "nudge" towards opening up on the issue).

ciretose wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

If you think all conservatives or 'right wingers' are on board with DOMA, you're mistaken.

The vast majority of those running for office are. And they are the ones who actually decide what the laws are.

So that kinda matters.

This, I agree with. Dont get me wrong, I think there are a few more pressing matters....ie assassinations, wars, and indefinite detentions and such. IMO, if the Republican party wants to keep pressing neocon after neocon as their nominees, they deserve to lose every election they run for.

Someone in some thread mentioned the difference between actual conservatives and the tripe that the republican party has been putting out over the last 3-4 decades. I, for one, would like to see a return to actual conservatism.

Agreed. You might find that surprising since I'm fairly far to the left of the Democratic party these days.

I'd like to see the Democrats in charge and move back to the left, but I appreciate the need for a good opposition party. The current Republican party is a nasty combination of grifters, con-men, looters, and the really scary true believers they've conned into buying the bill of goods they're peddling.

A real, sane opposition party would be good for the country. I don't know if it's going to be the Republicans though. I don't know if they can fix themselves.

Bigots? They have a right to decide what is legal in their state. If what they decide doesn't agree with you, that makes them bigots? Whose the real bigot? That's the left for you, they are tolerant only if you share their views, otherwise they are the most intolerant bigots out there. I'm sick of liberal hypocrisy. I bet you liberals would be the first to refuse having a gay couple babysit your kids.

Actually, no, they don't. The voters of state don't get to decide to violate human rights.

As for the rest of your rant...you worldview is utterly divorced from reality, and I pity you.

Bigots? They have a right to decide what is legal in their state. If what they decide doesn't agree with you, that makes them bigots?

The fact that they want to deny others the rights they enjoy makes them bigots. The fact that they view one kind of consensual, committed love as better than another kind makes them bigots. The fact that they feel they have a moral duty to "fix" or chastise someone for who they are makes them bigots. The fact that they scrabble in the dirt for whatever reason they can find to present to the rest of the world in order to cover up the hate in their hearts makes them bigots.

And the fact that you defend them makes you a bigot.

Whose the real bigot? That's the left for you, they are tolerant only if you share their views, otherwise they are the most intolerant bigots out there.

We are intolerant of intolerance. If you do not recognize that, or believe that it's a problem, then please get out. We no longer want your kind in the United States. Find a backwater to inhabit. Watch as the world that you feel comfortable in shrinks around you.

I'm sick of liberal hypocrisy.

We are way past caring what you're sick of. You have failed your country, and refuse to defend what it stands for.

I bet you liberals would be the first to refuse having a gay couple babysit your kids.

I bet you really wish that were the case.

I'm getting tired of things like this being a topic of discussion. I am more and more convinced that people like Cory here represent a school of thought that is truly alien to the rest of the world. There can be no meaningful communication between us and them, and they have repeatedly and prolifically demonstrated physical hostility to those who disagree with them. War is a terrible thing, but when confronted with issues as important and fundamental as this, I can really start to see the justification in why they are fought.

Paul Watson wrote:

Shalafi2412 wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Shalafi2412 wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

Shalafi,

So, are you saying condoms should be banned? Or is your desire to enforce natural law selective?

Should they be banned? That is not my call. However, would I use them? No.

If that's not your call, why is whether two men can get married?

If they want a civil union that is fine by me. Just do not call it marriage.

Why not? What does it matter if it's called marriage or not? Religions don't own the word.

Because it would be a radical redefinition of the term.

Language evolves. Deal with it. We're changing it because the current definition is inadequate for the needs of some, and because changing that definition to incorporate their desires does not harm you or anyone else in any way whatsoever.

Again, the time for debate on this is over. History has made up its mind and the wheels are rolling. You have two choices remaining: support the cause of equality, or be quiet and stay out of the way. There is no other option that allows you to keep your humanity intact.

In fact, I'm inclined to say that anything less than full-throated support for same-sex marriage rights makes you something less than human. Twenty years from now, we will look back on those who stood on the sidelines, and we will shame them for their cowardice.

Seriously, how does Whedon keep finding work?!

Compare number of people in this thread sharing your complaint (2 that I know of, 5 max) versus number of people saying the movie was awesome (everybody else).

Multiply by appropriate factors to reach total exposed population.

Problem answered. Next question.

Legions of fans conditioned to remember choice bits and forget inconveniences like alien movies.

Haven't seen them so can't weigh in on this one way or another.

Marriage, according to the Natural Law, is between a man and woman for the purpose of bringing forth and protecting children and for the love and support of the couple,in the context of the marriage covenant. Anything outside of that context defies the Natural Law.

"Natural Law" here, of course, being made up of everything you like and nothing you don't like.

Let me be very clear.

We're not interested in what you think "Natural Law" is. We're interested in what is right and decent. Throwing around terms like "Natural Law" means literally nothing to us, except to demonstrate fairly conclusively that you don't have any reasonable support for your position, and that you are instead forced to fall back on an arbitrary and nebulous self-defined philosophical construct in order to give yourself the illusion of having a leg to stand on.

Until you can make the argument that it is right and decent to deny same-sex couples the right to marry - and trust me, that isn't an argument you can make - you will kindly step aside and let the rest of us get on with making the world just the tiniest bit more decent to live in.

@Freehold and Grey Lensman- When you show the episodes out of order and preempt them almost every other week for sports or reality show #12345, its hard to build a following. And when you've sprung for an essentially lifesize replica of the ship's decks and CGI, you want to see instant returns. Firefly isn't an instant gratification show. You watch the characters build and grow, and then look back and realize how awesome the show really is.
/Browncoat rant

Avengers was absolutely phenomenal. I'm planning on going to see it again sometime, this time in IMAX. Hopefully I'll pick up on some of the things I missed the first go-around. ^_^

Yes, they're setting up a sequel. The short clip before the credits roll gives you the tip-off.

Anyway, the movie was phenomenal! Saw it at 1:05 pm ET on 3-D Ultrascreen. My only other experience with Whedon was Serenity (I've never seen Buffy nor Firefly) and he did a damn good job with this. None of the actors got shafted in screen time; every one of the names listed on the movie marquee had their time to shine.

Ruffalo did an excellent job as Banner. Excellent enough that someone thought to sign him to a contract to do more.

And as much as FHDM may loathe to hear it: Whedon should totally direct the next Hulk. Once you've seen the film, you'll understand why.

Personally, I would like to see more of the super hero mash-ups instead of going back to their own film franchises.

I 100% support this post.

GREAT. FRAKKING. MOVIE.

Yes, they're setting up a sequel. The short clip before the credits roll gives you the tip-off.

Anyway, the movie was phenomenal! Saw it at 1:05 pm ET on 3-D Ultrascreen. My only other experience with Whedon was Serenity (I've never seen Buffy nor Firefly) and he did a damn good job with this. None of the actors got shafted in screen time; every one of the names listed on the movie marquee had their time to shine.

Ruffalo did an excellent job as Banner. Excellent enough that someone thought to sign him to a contract to do more.

And as much as FHDM may loathe to hear it: Whedon should totally direct the next Hulk. Once you've seen the film, you'll understand why.

Personally, I would like to see more of the super hero mash-ups instead of going back to their own film franchises.

An athiest will fight for you to worship as you want. A christian will only fight to worship HIS way or not at all.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Aretas wrote:

Is there a question/response in there somewhere? I'm not sure in what way your attempting to slander, defame, or offend someone.

Who is able to oppress Christians when nearly the entire governing body is composed of Christians?

The secular left in my opinion.

I think I've said it before in this thread, but I really wish the secular left had half the power the right claims it does.

And what about the religious left? Why are they always ignored? Does the religious right just they don't exist? Or just don't count as religious?

Hold on there cowboy! I never said or implied the above statement. I find it crazy to assert that Christianity oppresses woman. Didn't you & Vice President Biden get the memo fromo the White house? The so called fake "war on woman" is a over.

You speak about how Christianity killed...

The Catholic church is actively trying to deny women access to birth control.

Here's some information about how birth control has valid medical benefits:

Link
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
Link 6

The Catholic Church isn't alone in their opposition. A Baptist, a Lutheran and a Jew (all men) all testified against giving women contraception in front of congress.

Men in charge of religious organizations should have nothing to do with determining what type of medical treatment is available to women.

Aretas,
Did you really just compare people who support Obama to the followers of the North Korean regime? And you claim everyone else is being inflammatory? Riiiiight. Matthew 7: 3-5 applies, I believe.

@Triomegazero.

Here is what the moderator posted before he locked the "Where is President Obama" thread.

Lambertz(Digital Products Assistant)Thursday, 10:27 AM
While we are totally okay with political discussions, it seems like this is quickly derailing. Please do not insult each other. That generally hinders fruitful discussion. I've removed most of this thread for that reason. This thread is now locked.

All the insults were directed at me for expressing my disappointment
on economic/political issues and saying we need a statesman not a politician.

I like this community & I really appreciate everyone but its shamefully obvious how the moderators turn a blind eye to the hateful anti Christian rhetoric while lockin down a thread critical of President Obama.

Citizen Aretas,

Not that I have anything to do with messageboard moderation, but I'm pretty sure the thread was locked not because it was critical of me, but rather because of the outpouring of not niceness against you.

If I am correct, the moderators were defending YOU, not me.

Now, let's address why there was an outpouring against YOU.

Some of the amusing hijinks that I have observed since you came on the boards: asking Comrade le Couard two questions about the Balkans and then determining that he hated America; accusing BNW of anti-semitism because he doesn't support Israel; saying that you voted against some Proposition for gay marriage because you hate the Democrats so much; etc., etc. As Irontruth pointed out above, there have been other shenanigans that I have missed.

This kind of behavior generates bad feelings. So, when you decide that you're going to stop your trollish ways and begin such a thread as "Where Is President Obama?," surprise, surprise, some of the people who have been offended by you go on the attack. You can say that you are going to change your ways, but people aren't going to change their approximation of you until you actually, you know, change.

And, getting back to your thread, posting what reads like an open-letter to the President of the United States of America on Paizo is pretty silly, regardless of political content, and that was the only point of my posts (Comrade Anklebiter, on the other hand, also dislikes me, which makes me sad.)

I like this community & I really appreciate everyone but its shamefully obvious how the moderators turn a blind eye to the hateful anti Christian rhetoric while lockin down a thread critical of President Obama.

It's hateful anti-Christian rhetoric for someone to say that on close examination they found Christianity appalling and thus opted not to be a Christian?

Clearly I'm jaded, because my threshold for calling something hatred is a bit higher than that.

Aretas wrote:

Bad Christians made him investigate and by that investigation he turned away from Chritianity? In other words once he really looked into Christianity it was so appaling that he turned away from it.

I just want fairness here.

Are you for real?

I don't doubt that he is.

Hey moderators. I'm suprised this thread is not locked due to the insulting and offensive comments like this one above.

What about that post is insulting and offensive to you?

Darkwing Duck, people like you are one of the reasons I'm no longer a Christian. If you want to give religion a good name, you may wish to change your behaviour.

Since it's likely that some are wondering, no, it was not solely bad Christians that made me turn. It was bad Christians that made me investigate Christianity more deeply. It was that investigation that made me turn.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who believes that everything labelled 'religion' should be taken as good.

But many people think that anything coming out of THEIR religion has to be good.

So does architecture.

.. ok i think that one needs a little explanation.

And religion changes with the times. You won't find very many Christians in the US claiming that eating cheeseburgers is a sin. I haven't been able to find any.

Two thousand years later to get a hamburger. It may change with the times but it doesn't change fast enough.

Let the bread rise already!

I don't understand this thread. Obama is Bush; viewed from a policy standpoint, they are one and the same person, with a suntan and some speech lessons to bypass that pesky 2-term limit. Debating how one is better or worse than the other is like debating which of two ticks you'd like to drink your blood.

In a world where little details didn't matter, and we could choose between better and best, we might be able to get away with running down the old "all career politicians are evil tools" trail - a trail, I might add, that is as old, stale, and boring as a dust-clogged cobweb in an empty attic, and has yet to contribute anything at all constructive to the discussion.

However, we live in a world where the Devil is in the details, and where we must choose between evils and semi-evils, and live with some things we don't like in order to get the ones we do. In this world - the REAL world - Bush was a bully and a man of limited intellect, who never questioned his bad decisions, and consequently never learned from his mistakes. He alienated the people on the other side of the aisle and killed the good will built up behind him with all manner of bad decisions. His second-in-command regularly exceeded his authority and usurped the authority of the Commander In Chief, with no repercussions, and to his own economic gain, and that of his cronies. Constitutional power was exceeded, and bad decisions pushed through, through a constant mantra of fear and hatred. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer, and the middle class suffered. A giant surplus was turned into an enormous deficit through implementation of bad laws, which we still must live with, and two wars were started, one of which was totally unjustified, and broke the country while making corporations - all to which the Executive Branch was beholden, very rich.

Obama's big mistake has mainly been in trying to work with the people across the aisle, whose positions have been stocked by angry and bigoted voters with exactly the same people who will refuse to work with a black president, or even just a Democratic one. Meanwhile, the career politicians in Washington continue to resist any change Obama attempts, for the same bad reasons Bush made all of his lunkheaded decisions - corporate interest and the maintaining of the status quo. As for the man himself, he has demonstrated an ability to learn from mistakes, and is trying hard to keep the middle class from vanishing. His methods may be longterm and difficult - AS THE MAN STATED DURING HIS ACCEPTANCE SPEECH.

None of this is made up or exaggerated. Anybody over the age of 18 who has been paying attention since Clinton left office and has a Wisdom of 10 should have seen for themselves what a bitter, lie-filled stenchfest politics has become, and who is actually trying to help (very few, but including Obama), and who just didn't ever give a crap (Bush/Cheney all the way, baby, yeah!).

All I have to say is... He's done More and better in 4 years than GW Bush did in his 8.

Remember Bushie screw the economy up royally in 8 years. I'm sorry but it takes more than 4 to get it back on track. And in 4 years things HAVE gotten better not worse

He has tried to get us out of 2 wars Bushie started, and kept us out of more like Iran, Korea, Syria, Egypt, Libya (well for the most part Libya at least we did not send troops there to break up that mess)

And no, while he is not perfect, I cannot remember 1 single president that has been alive since I was born (JFK was the first) That was perfect, he sure as all heck is better than Bushie and Chaney

IF you think you can do better, then go start campaigning for the job yourself

I'd like to see your contention that foreign affiars haven't done anything but improve since Mr. "My Way Or the HighWay" Cowboy Bush left office. We actually are talking TO our allies as opposed to talking down to them, a strategy that was pretty much noted for failing a lot more than suceeding.

As far as the economy goes. That's the responsibility of the whole of Washington, perhaps the real question is what's Congress been doing given that the new strategy these days is simply to make sure that every Obama initative never gets off the ground as getting him out of office seems to be a much higher priority among the Republicans than actually getting things fixed up.

I like this one..

"President Obama in my opinion cares more about his re-election."

Thanks to the fact that the Supreme Court has pretty much blown any restraint on campaign spending out the window, the average Congressman, both Senate and the House spends a good chunk of his day working in a call center to drum up contributions for the next campaign. This is every day of their work week.

If you could prove that statement, that would make him no different than EVERY resident of the Hill. Every President has one project that they've made their prime focus. For Obama, it's been health care.

Have you not been paying attention, one speech a week for the last 3 months and weekly whitehouse broadcasts. If you're only watching the 24 hour news networks you might have missed them because for some reason the news networks don't broadcast everything he says.

All statistics show that all of your concerns, (economy, race relations, foreign affairs) have gotten better since Obama was elected. So what exactly is your proof that things have gotten worse since Bush was in office? Gut feelings and talking points from the 24 hour News networks don't count.

I agree that the media has chosen photographs that make Zimmerman look like a nut and Trayvon look like a child. However, I think this makes an excellent example of the differences in selection bias and outright manipulation. In the Trayvon case they chose real pictures, just highly selected to push a narrative. However, anyone remember this?

Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters

Probably not because it got little airtime even though it was nucking futz. I think it is funny that they gave Steinberg a bigger nose.

So I agree that all media is biased to the corporate agenda, but it is selection bias. Fox News on the other hand...well...

I lose more respect for Fox News everyday. I did not even know about this.

You know what pisses me off about this discussion and about the backlash to this story in general?

We have one more black kid (teen, if you insist) shot dead when there was, at the very least, no reason to confront him at all and the big problem is that the media is race-baiting.

It's like the only racial problem in America is prejudice against whites. All of the evidence of continuing discrimination against minorities doesn't matter. All the documentation of police prejudice, DWB, stop and frisk policies, etc. None of it matters.
The suggestion without absolute proof that racial prejudice might be involved in the shooting of an unarmed black teen and/or the coverup/ineptitude by the police and it's just proof of the anti-white bias of the media.

Please stop trying to start something you know you can't win.

The only way to 'win' this is to walk away.

I have noticed a trend on these boards. More than once a poster dislikes a certain rule asks the Paizo devs for clarfication then when the devs respond espcially if it's not in their favor get angry or upset. I just don't get that. While I might disagree with person opinion I can respect them not liking or agreeing with a rule.

I do find it extremely disrespectful when after the dev has responded to a rules question to basically tell them that their wrong no matter what they say. Or that their explanation is wron because it does not match what you wanted to hear. Seriously you don't tell the people who created the game their wrong on their own rules unless their factually wrong. If you already have your mind made up on a rule, topic or subject and nothing is going to change that why even psot on any forum. Seems like a waste of time and nothing more than an excuse to increase a personal post count.

And no I don't like Xp costs for crafting items.

The XP costs in the old system topped out at about 4,000xp for a 200,000gp item, which is pretty paltry to a high level character that needs 500,000xp to get their next level (especially considering the time requirements). We did, at one point in time, consider a complicated scaling system to keep the xp costs and keep them relevant, but it was just more trouble than its worth. The MIC system is already convoluted and open to abuse without careful monitoring by an active GM.

In the end, we decided that the sort of "fake" cost paid to make items and cast spells was simply not worth the design space for the payout it was supposed to simulate.

XP costs for spells and magic items will not be coming back. If you feel you need them for your game, by all means, add them back in, but they will not be returning to the core mechanics.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

The same guy forcing you to use PF's magic item rules.

Also the thing that Sean needs to understand is the fact that you could never spend XP to drop you below your current level.

Right, in my 13 years of playing 3E D&D, pricing magic items for publication, and pointing out editorial and development errors in the core rulebooks, I never actually read the item crafting rules. :/

I vote for Obama. I'm not even kidding. I voted 3rd party in 08 but I'm all for Obama now.

Democrats

Luminiere: The people here are people on the internet. Our opinions of you and your creepiness or lack there of shouldn't matter in the least. As long as your group is okay with it, no laws are being broken, as long as no one is being harmed and as long as its fun for everyone, do what you want.

However, if what you want is outside of societal normals and if you post about that in public on the internet, people are going to condemn you for it. It doesn't matter what the topic is, nor does it matter what it is you choose. If those people who are mocking you posted all the details of their lives, they'd get mocked as well. Such is the nature of the internet, and of people.

James, as a GM who mostly runs games for players who don't know the rules too well and have never even heard of optimisation or the paizo boards, I would like to thank you.

Xanesha was a dreadful encounter, an absolute waste of space in the adventure who was so obviously a TPK-in-waiting that it forced GMs to do a lot of work (missing the point of buying adventures).

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997–2003)

I'm sure that those of Aretas-esque mentality will be overjoyed to know that the money from their purchases here (heck, even not just purchases - website traffic boosts page rankings etc) will help fund the champagne on wedding parties of Paizo's non-heterosexual employees (yep, there are quite a few of them). It will be the ultimate in poetic justice.

Just make sure you let me know when that happens folks, I'll be ready to cover myself in peanut butter and roll around in all my commie liberal pinko glory.

Without getting into who's right or who's wrong on this issue, there has been a lot more insulting/abusive behavior directed towards Aretas than there has been coming from him.

I typically go out of my way to be civil, because that's just good form when you're talking about something over which there can be reasonable disagreement. There are a lot of things on which I have opinions and talk about where I think that other opinions are potentially valid as well. Those discussions merit civility.

This is not one of those discussions.

The right to marry is a human right that deserves protection, including for homosexual couples. That's no longer up for debate, as far as I'm concerned. There are no other valid opinions. You either support gay marriage, or you are wrong. The debate ended a long, long time ago. Were this issue over interracial marriage, I'd be taking the same position.

So, yes. Aretas has been made to suffer our combined disgust. That's intentional. He is advocating stripping a marginalized group of people of their human rights. I will never stoop to civil discussion with people like that.

Auxmaulous: I'm starting to believe that this thread is a sounding board for those with like minds/lifestyles. It was never meant to be a discussion.

You're right. We're finished with the actual debate over gay marriage. That was done years ago. We had our reasoned discussions, and most of us came to the same conclusion: Denying gay people the right to marry is an awful thing to do and serves no benefit at all. So that's that. We threw our support behind it then, and everything we've been doing since has been fighting to fix the problem.

So no, we're not here to discuss anything with you. Not really. We're here to show everyone else how ridiculous the arguments against gay marriage are. We're here to put you on display. That's what all of this is. We're giving you the opportunity to tell everyone exactly what you believe (or at least what you say you believe) because we know that the more we can get you to say, the weaker your position gets.

When your opponent's argument is ridiculous, you don't bother trying to reason him into a better argument.

You turn up his mic.

Vote no to gay marriage.

Do I get to vote on your marriage, too? I think it would be fun to hold a public vote on how valid your relationship is.

Scott Betts wrote:

Seriously, I know there's a perception that the two parties are very similar, but they have gigantic differences in proposed policy.

That's a big part of my issue -- at least the Republicans will come right out and admit that they're theocratic servants of our corporate overlords. The Dems will claim to be the opposite, but then turn around and follow the Republican playbook all the way down the line.

If that were true, we would never see deadlocks over important issues in Congress. I'm not saying the Democratic party is full of angels. It's not. It's got corrupt people and it's got idiots and it's got corporate interests. But it also has a lot of people like you and like me who actually believe in things and who want to improve the country, and it actually gets some of those things done. That, and the Republican party is terrifying.

Translation: Please be a Democrat. They're slightly less abhorrent on SOME issues.

And WAY less abhorrent on others.

Seriously, I know there's a perception that the two parties are very similar, but they have gigantic differences in proposed policy. I linked their platforms earlier in the thread. They aren't easy reads (around 50 pages) but even if you're not interested in joining them it really ought to be required reading just so you know what's being planned for your country.

Scott Betts wrote:

IceniQueen wrote:

FYI I am Independent, I care less for either side...

If I can make a humble suggestion: Please become a Democrat. We're probably not exactly what you want, but democracy isn't about getting exactly what you want. It's about finding compromise with those around you, and banding together to empower both change and stability. Even better, get involved at a local level and push for the issues that you believe in. There's so much opportunity for that right now, and a lot of people simply aren't doing what they could be doing. A party is only as good as the people who belong to it, and you will find like-minded people in the Dems.

With all do respect, I won't do it. I find I agree with democrats more than republicans, but I still disagree with you guys a lot.

I get that. I'm in the same boat. But as an independent (I'm assuming you're an independent here, let me know if you're registered with a third party), you have very little power. Your voice does not count for much, and you lack the institutional tools to amplify it. As a member of a party, you have the backing of the entire party on the issues that make up its platform (some of which you clearly care about), and you have the ability to influence that platform from within if you want to change it to encompass more of the issues you care about. There's really no downside to party affiliation, and there are a lot of upsides if your goal is to improve the things you want to see improved.

And, honestly, we could really use your help. The challenges we're up against are kind of enormous.

Never thought I'd agree with Scott Betts of all people. Yet, here I am, agreeing 100%.

I daresay we'd probably agree on most important things. We just happen to argue about D&D a lot.

Never thought I'd agree with Scott Betts of all people. Yet, here I am, agreeing 100%. Auxmaulous, you fscked it up bigtime. Claiming you would do otherwise today, and calling yourself anything but a prop 8 supporter is pathetic.

WE THE PEOPLE of California already did when then voted in strong numbers to make prop 8 law, all this does is invalidate the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

GOOD.

We the people do not have the right to tyrannize the minority. The people cannot strip rights away. That's why they're called rights. You don't get to vote on them. You just have them. Forever.

I voted for prop 8 because I voted for anything and everything anti-democrat party in 2008. I knew Obummer was going to win, so in effect my vote was a protest vote since to me gays = another subset of democrats.

This is really, really pathetic. You voted to strip a group of people of some basic human rights because you imagined that they might be affiliated with a political party you hate with a burning passion.

I want you to, for a second, imagine that someone did this to you. Think of a basic right that you enjoy, and then imagine that someone voted to strip you of that right because they suspected you might be Republican. Can you imagine how you would react to that?

You did a g#~%#%n monstrous thing. I don't care if "in hindsight" you would have voted not to strip rights. You are so staunchly at war with a political party that you can't think straight. A political party which, let's face it, has a ton-and-a-half more going for it than the Republican party does.

I applaud you Finn K you spoke that with total truth and correctness.

I think it's time WE the people take this law and rights to the SC and show how un-constitutional it is to prevent Gay marriage. Because it prevents the pursuit of happiness to hundreds of thousands of people.

if a gay person cannot marry the person they love, then neither can a white person, African -American, Asia- American, Mexican- American etc... Marriage across race should be forbid, as well as marriage across religious beliefs, or social standings, or anything for that matter.

To those who do not believe in same sex marriage... I could just as easily say I do not believe in marriage between a male and a female and outlaw it or take away the rights just as easily.

Or I could say I do not believe in your eye color so thus you have no rights to have Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Or just because your left handed, you cannot own a handgun or cannot vote.

It's all the same.

I applaud the judge who ruled on this. Now I say bring on the fight and lets win it

PROP 8 results

Votes Percentage

Yes 7,001,084 52.24%
No 6,401,482 47.76%

Valid votes 13,402,566 97.52%
Invalid or blank votes 340,611 2.48%
Total votes 13,743,177 100.00%
Voter turnout 79.42%
Electorate 17,304,428

The population of California 37,691,912

Just b/c I agree to civil unions that does not mean the constitution can be used to change the definition of Marriage, a Sacrament in the Christian Church. Its a Sacrament not a right to get Married.

What does a legal decision by the state of California have to do with the rites of "the Christian Church" (as though such a thing exists)? Ironically, many Christian churches don't even use the word "sacrament" at all.

You can post voter percentages all you want. It doesn't matter one bit. The people do not get to vote on rights. That's why they're called rights. People can't team up to take them away from you.

Please read up on tyranny of the majority. And please stop trying to shove your religious beliefs down others' throats by using them to justify the establishment of laws. You don't get to do that. We get that you love the Bible and everything in it. Your love of the Bible DOES NOT trump the rights of others.

Saying most people who are for Prop 8 are hateful and bigoted is just wrong. It creates animosity for those you name call.

Good.

Supporting Proposition 8 is hateful and bigoted, or shamefully (and likely arrogantly) ignorant. Either way, the people who support(ed) it are poor citizens, and even worse Christians. Speaking as a Christian myself, please stop giving us a bad name. It's getting to the point where I'm ashamed to label myself that because it means I'm somehow associated with Christians like you.

It's times like this where I begin to understand how religious wars were fought. Strong enough religious belief precludes mutual understanding. Where there is no understanding, and where one group can impose their tenets on the other without its consent, bloodshed becomes less tragedy, and more attractive solution.

noretoc wrote:

The world according to Scott. You don't like the new game? Clearly you are in the wrong.

Yes, because I said that, right? In a post? Somewhere?

Well, two posts up from this one you state wotc 'overestimated' it's customers. That seems to strongly imply you think the customers were in the 'wrong' to me. As does the tone and content of the generality of your posts in my opinion. You seem to believe most of us who didn't like 4e never played it, or never were going to like it, that we are all overly emotional, irrational creatures, unable to see the light because of our childish tantrums. That ultimately we have no valid reasons for disliking 4e.

Y'know you post as if you have a hotline to the ultimate truth about everything connected to this subject, you present opinions as facts as much as anyone, yet I strongly suspect if we'd asked you last year whether the advent of 5e (and by implication the commercial failure of 4e) would have been likely to be announced before the end of January 2012 you'd have poo-pooed the very idea. Indeed you still poo-poo, or at the least imply doubt, that PF is in fact outselling 4e (or matching it, which amounts to the same difference) over recent quarters - something just about everyone else online seems to accept to be the case.

I'd respect your position more if you just said; hey, I have perhaps overestimated the support for 4e amongst the customer base, however I love 4e, I think it worked. Clearly many people did not, let's hope wotc ensures it does the right things to make 5e liked by more people.

That you continue to mount a relentless campaign of (forgive me) often slippery seeming, post-chopping, arguments, ignoring questions you find too difficult to answer ... I dunno, what good does it do?

Blaming, or implying blame on, those of us who did not like 4e for reasons we believe to be good, for it's own failure is getting really old. Really quick.

As to wotc overestimating it's customers - that's rubbish, and Mr Mearls himself agrees. He said 4e aimed too low, that it assumed it needed to aim at the lower denominator, not the higher. If anything wotc has admitted it underestimated it's audience with 4e.

That's what the school board decided to do, stop it before it became to far afield that it went from education to indoctrination. The kids are still being educated about all the mistakes we as Americans have made but to focus on them to the level is a little extreme and possibly anti-American.

Anti-American?

How so? My ancestors were slaves in this country and in the West Indies.

They were freed here after and unpopular war and it could be argued that things got MARGINALLY better for them here.

Segregation existed from the end of the Civil War (1865?) to right about the early mid sixties in this country. This wasn't something that happened in someone ELSES lifetime. I have relatives who lived through Segregation and remember it clearly.

I have a son aged 10. As an American, I dont want him to learn ONLY about all of the cool things that white people did. Because in those mainstream history lessons that everyone seems to be a huge fan of, black, brown and yellow people apparently did NOTHING to make this country and are just leeching off of the super-capable white d00ds.

He needs to understand why there are people who are going to automatically think he's less than because of the color of his skin. He needs to understand that he has value and that there are other men and women who look like him who HAVE contributed something worthwhile to this country other than entertainment. And he needs to know how great the odds that were against them.

Anti-American? I think teaching young people of color (especially the males) about the non-whitewashed version of American history is as about as American as you can get.