houstonderek's page

We just had Canada Day a few days ago, July the 1st. It is the anniversary of "confederation" when the first provinces formed an actual nation. We celebrate with fireworks and trying to convince ourself that we really aren't exactly the same as our neighbours to the south. ;-)

hey, your comics are funnier. you can keep nickleback though...

And then there's Venezuela, where their senate/congress/whatever has been repeatedly voting to give up more and more power to their red-shirted very undiplomatic leader who'se name I've forgotten again. Crazy people. "Please, lets not have any rights! Take care of us, Daddy! Make all of the hard decisions for us!"

that would be hugo chavez. he'll wear out his welcome soon enough. he already has colombia itching to kick his butt, for one...

OK, for all of you who think it's in your best interest to f!@@ with the other people on these boards, insult their opinions, and attempt to impose YOURS on them, I redirect you HERE.

hear, hear. there is absolutely no reason any discussion, whether it be politics, religion, 4e, or any other controversial topic shouldn't be civil.

remember remember the fifth of November...

**EDIT** Wow! on the same wavelength, Patrick.
wiki = Guy Fawkes

wasn't guy fawkes a catholic extremist protesting the oppression of catholics in england by the COE and the king?

[edit] sorry, didn't see the link...

I'm sure that any violent Buddhist extremists out there would be just as unpleasant to be around (there's gotta be *one* out there...).

well, a sizeable portion of the younger tibetan buddhists in exile in india are advocating a much more violent course of action towards the chinese. they dont seem to keen on the pasifistic path advocated by the dalai lama. so i'd say there's more than one...

ok, this is personal. my life in the '90s was a mess. i was running dope ffrom mexico, hooked on coke, living like a completely nihilistic b$~$!&~@, didn't care about anyone but myself, and finally got caught smuggling 100kg of cocaine into the country. i was given a ten year prison sentence, federal. did seven and a half after getting good time and a ten month reduction for taking a rehab program. honestly, it was the most important seven years of my life. i came out with a completely new lease on life, a new outlook, and i am starting to piece together an existence i can be proud of. (an aside: being able to play d&d in the joint helped the time go by easier. we used cards marked with numbers for dice.)

prison is a hard place, but it can be a good place to find some perspective if you're willing to open your mind up to the mistakes you've made and the harm you've done the people in your life.

my advice, especially considering that canadian prisons are more geared towards rehab than american prisons (trust me, american prisons are about punishment, any rehab is an afterthought), is that you might want to talk your brother into turning hiumself in, then be as supportive as you can (frequent visits, encourage him to take correspondence courses, stuff like that). life on the run wears you out, i know, and it isn't any way to live.

mexico has a zillion "independence days" (driving in some of their cities is like driving on a calendar), but cinco de mayo, marking the defeat of the french in the 1860s is the most famous.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Paul Watson wrote:

That's fascistic not socialistic. Socialists would be trying to nationalise your bar for the people.

Of course, NAZI was an acronym for National Socialist Worker's Party... but they were fascists. So the terms maybe aren't as clear-cut as we'd like. Or, if you get too extreme in one direction, no one can tell the difference between you and far extremists in the opposite direction. Like in Pac-Man, when you go off one side of the screen and re-appear on the other!

This is true. On the other hand, I doubt you could make a convincing case that Pinochet was a socialist. Authoritarian is rather closer to the mark. Whatever your opinion on economics (socialism vs capitalism) says nothing about your opinions on freedom (libertarianism vs authoritarianism).

And as it's fashionable to post Political Compass scores:

Economic: -4.83
Social: -4.6

It's been fairly consistent for a while now. And should explain why I felt the need to defend socialism from being associated with fascism. ;-)

keep in mind, pinochet was the only dictator i can recall EVER voluntarily stepping down, when he was sure chile wouldn't turn into argentina. he was a brutal bastard, to be sure, and his methods were deplorable, but he was a slightly different breed from the typical "president for life" type.

Paul Watson wrote:

Garydee wrote:

Timespike wrote:

Luke wrote:

That looks about right. In terms of U.S. politics I think all the states should simultaneously secede from the union. Smaller liberal democracies govern themselves better. We can all sign some pact of mutual defense and settle our occasional differences via college sports.

I'd be happy if this happened, but I'd VERY quickly relocate to a different state at that point. Illinois is suffocating in terms of personal liberty.

The problem is where do you go to get personal freedoms anymore? I live in Texas and you wouldn't believe how socialistic it is getting here. I own a bar/billiards place where I live and you wouldn't believe the power the police have over you. They can search your business at-will, shut you down at-will, and arrest you at-will. It's totally nuts!

That's fascistic not socialistic. Socialists would be trying to nationalise your bar for the people.

Yeah, maybe so.

you live in the people's repblic of austin, by any chance? we don't seem to have that problem here in houston, nor in dallas, when i bartended there, as i recall...

And another archaeological oddity.

I may need to introduce a chess-playing ghoul into my campaign.

well, that explains the scene in that bergman flick, at least...

During the super adventure GDQ1-7 There was a Frost giant(Big Johann) on a woolly mammoth that charges my players,one of the players had a 12th cavalier on a horse charge forward won int, rolled a Natural 20, rolled on our critical hit chart from the best of dragon vol.3 (not sure on that)

He rolled the dice and severed the woolly mammoth leg at the upper front and doing like 102 damage! with a longsword mounted! ah the good old days....

big johann!

i was dming, the party had just stood up to the half orc, saving the barmaids honor and all. half orc flees, gets johann. johan calls the party out, yada yada, the paladin jumps up and declares he'll challenge johann, the fighter says "not so fast, he's mine!", thief is already sneaking out the back door trying to maneuver for a backstab. gnome illuionist looks out the window, locks eyes with big johann, casts "phantasmal killer", johann fails save, slumps over dead, gnome (abraxas abacab, classic rock goodness for a gnome illusionist name...) shrugs and returns to his tea and scones...

The entire Dragonlance series, D1 thru Dwhatever it was

im with you on most of your post but his one. DL1-14, well, i felt more involved reading the novels than playing them...

I love N1 - Cult of the Reptile God. I actually recently DM's again recently - put it in the swamp east of Daggerford in the Forgotten Realms. One day I will probably play the Lost City again.

best 1e module, period.

i don't care what our hosts called #1 in that issue of dungeon, they were wrong!!!

houstonderek wrote:

... but i guess i had the censored version...

I have the original... well my brother has it, or bought it, but I've got it. He doesn't play anymore.

i lost all of my pre 3x stuff in a fire, judges guild, grimtooth, all of it. im piecing it back together through used bins, half priced books, e-bay, stuff like that, but i refuse to get raped by "the hit pointe" and "noble knight games", they WAY overcharge for the old stuff...

*sniffle*

No THAC0 love in the thread.

well, i kinda skipped 2e, so Thac0 was just a module shorthand for me. never liked it anyway, what little exposure i had to 2e. i preferred the moldy old chart on page 75, 1e dmg...

Heathansson wrote:

1e life lesson #1:

Hot chicks behind bars? Probably werewolves.

The question is, did you have the original PotSP, or the reprint with the redone (censored) art?

wait, weren't the "werewolf babes behind bars, guarded by poor half insane cleric" in queen of the demonweb pits?

been playing since '79, 1e, when i was 9. i had palace of the silver princess, but i guess i had the censored version...

(sorry, just kinda jumping around the thread, this may have been answered already...)

Eustace Q. Figg, Chairman WNC wrote:

The Whig Party needs fine upstanding young satyrs like yourself for delegates to our National Convention.

So long as I don't have to support Ron "I've never heard of the Tokagawa Shogunate, because history has no lessons worth learning" Paul. That guy's not a libertarian; he's an ostritch.

NOTE: Apologies to all the Ron Paul fans. I wanted to like him. I tried. And he had some great ideas. But, man, he had some lousy ones, too... like every other joker out there, I guess.

ron paul would have been comfortable in the republican party of the 30's: isolationist, protectionist. he isn't a Libertarian, not really.

Personally I am a very compassionate guy. Despite lingering in the lower middle class I give regularly to several charities. I recycle and compost, and I never use pesticides on my property. I drive a Toyota Corolla, and would drive a hybrid if I didn't distrust the technology. I personally don't give a flying fig what you want to do in the privacy of your own home, whether it involves sex, drugs, rock&roll: go nuts. In many ways I seem like a total hippy. I always feel bad whenever someone is in trouble, and if I can I help them.

However, the real thing that sticks in my craw isn't that the government wants to help people. It's the fact that they do such a wasteful job of it. Most charities try to run a 90/10 split for monies received. I.e. they spend 10% on administrative bureaucratic efforts, and 90% goes to the people benefiting from said charity. The government flips these numbers.

While I want to help people, I don't want Rep. Greasy McPorker to lavish government jobs on his family to administrate giveaway programs with limited oversight. I wish they could be held more acountable, but as this is a meta issue in mainstream politics, it will never change. All we can do is try to vote where we can.

you've hit the nail on the head, my friend. government, by nature, is a bureaucratic mess, and is incapable, in practice, to actually get much done. it's one of the reasons i laugh when i hear people say things like "we need to spend more on education", when, at the federal, state, and local level, we spend twice as much per student on public education than private schools do, with much lower results.

apply that across the board, and it isnt how much money, but how effectively the money is spent.

houstonderek wrote:

its funny, no one seems to mind their "y" axis score, just their "x" axis score.

I minded my "y" score more than my "x" score.

I mean, yeah, I feel that people should be held accountable for their actions. Does that suddenly make me a fascist? No.

oh, just own your inner storm trooper, you'll feel better ;)

houstonderek wrote:

exactly. but, that is EXACTLY what you get when you try to translate compassion into policy.

None of the questions asked me to speculate about the consequences of lawmaking based on my compassion.

no, they don't. but, as a POLICTICAL study, not a sociolological one, the implication is built in.

No, they need to reword the questions. If I submitted this to a social research professor in any field I'm pretty sure it would get a low mark. Furthermore, I doubt all those famous people have taken the test. Someone answered for them.... what's up with that?

this is where we disagree. i think it is beautifully done on the "x" axis, and explains why people vote for a guy (read: carter) for emotional reasons, then wonder why the economy goes in the tank when he does funny things like implement a "windfall tax" on oil companies (sound familiar, anyone?). it is exactly those appeals to emotion that get people elected who are going to make policy that results in economically expensive (i.e. taxes) programs.

houstonderek wrote:

The Jade wrote:

Yeah, that's me, all right. A Marxist entrepreneur.

well, a negative score on the economic axis indicates a desire for heavy government regulation and taxes, both of which tend to stifle growth (a bit or a lot, depending on the extreme...), so it would be a bit of a dichotomy to see someone who wishes to start a market driven venture desire a system that makes entering the market harder, especially if the venture would have low capitalization at the onset.

I do fine in small business despite thinking that corporations have to stay accountable and fairly taxed for the common good. Doesn't feel like a mixed up point of view destined to make it harder to enter business to me.

i think a definition of "fairly taxed" is in order. and, as a point of discussion, you do know corporations just raise their prices to pay for that tax, right?

Many of the question elicit a compassionate response. Thus a compassionate realist could get a result that casts him or her as a Marxist.

exactly. but, that is EXACTLY what you get when you try to translate compassion into policy.

Exactly, and that is biased in the social research sense. The results are not equal to the reality. I and think you are using the word archetypical in a way it is not meant to be used, and you spelled it wrong.

=p

it isnt social research, its political research.

and, yeah, i may have used the word incorrectly, i typed and erased three different words that didnt sound right either.

and what do you mean there isnt spell check on here???

;)

exactly

but, thats the point. its a political plotting system, not a compassion meter. the way you have to look at it when answering isn't "what do i want from society?", its "is this what i want government concerning itself with?".

if you answered "strongly agree" or "agree" to the marx quote, you're going to scale heavily on the left side of the chart, as that government policy isn't possible without heavy taxation and regulation.

that's just one instance, mind you, but there were several questions in the quiz that posed a compassion issue, and you had to consider what that policy would cost, in taxes, before answering...

its funny, no one seems to mind their "y" axis score, just their "x" axis score.

pres man wrote:

Though I have to say that test wasn't very objective. Several of the questions were highly biased.

Word.

the questions weren't "biased" as much as they were "archtypical". most are either direct policy planks taken from the political sphere, quotes, or stereotypical statements of the kind you'd find in an IRC politics chat room...

I do not want heavy government regulation and taxes yet I have a negative score and I answered truthfully. Brother, there is something wrong with this test.

again, it depends on how strongly you answered some of the questions.

you could, personally, not care for high regulation and taxation, but, as an emotional response, answered some of the questions in a compassionate manner, which indicate a desire for policy that isn't possible without strict regulation or a high tax rate.

It seems to me that many of the questions are unclear, and that the test is prone to give high negative scores to someone with concerns over corporate power even if they are moderate or even right wing on most other economic issues. If a person wants corporations to be held responsible for their actions in a way that is both effective and commensurate to their scale then suddenly he's a radical leftist.

it balances out depending on what you answer on the "test" questions, the ones which specifically refer to Marxist economic theory. also, answering "strongly" in either direction adds more weight, score-wise.

i wound up with a +3.something on the economic scale, even though i did answer to the affirmative on some of the corporate responsibility/regulation questions.

Yeah, that's me, all right. A Marxist entrepreneur.

well, a negative score on the economic axis indicates a desire for heavy government regulation and taxes, both of which tend to stifle growth (a bit or a lot, depending on the extreme...), so it would be a bit of a dichotomy to see someone who wishes to start a market driven venture desire a system that makes entering the market harder, especially if the venture would have low capitalization at the onset.

I personally take umbrage to liberal libertarians be typed using a negative score.

This is an outrage!

if you look at it from the "how many points you are away from hitler, stalin, pol pot, et al" then you should wear the number proudly, like, "i'm so NOT an authoritarian pig it rules!"...

something like that...

i understand the social scores, freedom is a lovely thing, but, wow, the economic scores are somewhat suprising. and extreme. marx would be proud...

Can everyone just start arguing again?

This is so lame....

I'm gonna go play 4E.

wow, for some reason, i can forgive you for being a neo-marxist, molotov cocktail throwing, leftwing moonbat wingnut canadian, but 4e?

just when you think you're getting to know someone...sheesh...

:)

Took the political test and here's where I stand:

Economic Left/Right: 2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.56

I don't seem to fit the bill of any of the test's political examples. I guess "moderately conservative and moderately libertarian" would describe me.

Oh wait, just checked out the 2008 US primaries section. Mike Gravel is closest, but considerably further over to the right than me.

your score indicates a "government, get out of my bedroom and wallet" politicsl view. my kind of attitude, frankly.

gravel's plot on the graph represents the political view he took during the primaries, he isn't quite as free market as the graph represents, actually. he's more moderate economically, if his past is any indication.

My personal favourite is Mike Gravel... although I need to go check if he's changed position on a couple of things (which the Political Compass US Primaries page seems to indicate).

There's a guy who would shake things up in Washington. Put Nader on as vice-president and I could imagine a showdown with the lobbyists (both financial and religious) who usually try to run the show. :-D

gravel would be a good president, but the american people arent ready for someone who makes sense.

The page the Political Compass has for the US Primaries 2008 is also quite interesting.

One thing that also has to be taken into consideration is this following excerpt:

"When examining the chart it's important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while in any other western democracy her record is that of a mainstream conservative."
(Emphasis mine)

makes sense, europeans use the more classical definitions of the words "liberal" and "conservative".

Economic Left/Right: 3.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.64

"neo-liberal" (yay locke and smith and paine!!!)

sounds about right, right there with friedman on the chart.

pretty much says "free market economically, somewhat liberal socially".

Koldoon wrote:

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

Koldoon wrote:

Is this whole grammar police thing really necessary?

I don't really want to read a thread and have to worry that my english teacher is editing my post.

If your criticising a PUBLISHED error, that's one thing, but a post on a message board, come on...

While I agree that interrupting a thread to complain about someones unintentional literary slip is rude that is not what happened. I am confident that Mr. Schneider will take no offense at the above post because of the quiet polite way it was done. In fact as a professional who's job is word smithing I wouldn't be surprised if he thanked the original poster for it.

For the record it's English and criticizing, thought you might like to know.

Yeah, you are not my english teacher, so please f#%# off.

- Ashavan

Are you alright there Koldoon? A pet peeve perhaps, or just in a bad mood?

And Dennis, if you want to get technical, "criticising" is correct English (as opposed to American English) and I believe that "english" can be correctly used with a lower case E when it is used to describe the discipline of study of the English language (I could be wrong on that, but that is my understanding).

Thought you might like to know. ;-)

of course, everyone missed my pet peeve: "your" for "you're"...

or getting "there, they're and their" mixed up...

or "two, too, and to..."

Tensor wrote:

How do you know if you are a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent?

Is there a test?

If you eat French Fries, you're a Democrat, if you eat Freedom Fries, you're a Republican. If you are an Independent? Well, you eat onion rings.

pass the onion rings...

houstonderek wrote:

anyway, i really do enjoy this thread, a good "left/right" melee battle royale is always entertaining for someone not invested in the "conservative/liberal" blood war...

Cool.

And I did say things that can be taken as throwing stones. Admitting it spoils the rancor, though, doesn't it?

again, touche :)

And that's why I like Libertarianism: I am a socially liberal fiscal conservative who loves his country and its freedom-loving ideals yet hates the bureaucracy that modern government has encrusted itself with which guzzles dollars from the public trough at an alarming rate.. Pork spending is definately a bipartisan issue in Foggybottom.

I also despise those who try to legislate their moral stance on a wider audience (and both major parties are guilty of this). This is one reason Barr is such a lousy choice for the Libertarian party. They whiffed trying for a politcal heavyweight (as if Barr was one, his big claim to fame was the Clinton impeachment brouhaha) and betrayed their core principles.

Once again,
WHIGS IN 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who's with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! **AHHHHHHHHHHHHH**

Runs screaming from Delta House

actually, they lost me at harry brown...

Whig, you say? can i set up the 527's?

How do you know if you are a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent?

Is there a test?

there is, but you dont get to see the results...

[side note]: could someone tell me how to do "multiquotes" on this forum? im not accustomed to the format, and i dont want to be a post spammer...

But let me correct you on one thing: 'CANADA' TECHNICALLY NEVER HAD SLAVERY. BRITAIN DID. CANADIAN CONFEDERATION HAPPENED IN 1867.

touche :)

i appologize if i was out of line, i was just responding to the general "feel" of your take. in the absence of the particulars of your life, that is, your statement taken in a vacuum, it could sound a bit like throwing stones.

anyway, i really do enjoy this thread, a good "left/right" melee battle royale is always entertaining for someone not invested in the "conservative/liberal" blood war...

32: doesn't void my 22 year old homebrew campaign...

pres man wrote:

Kruelaid wrote:

And slavery?

People were enslaved for their political views? When was this?

So you're telling me that slavery doesn't count because it is not political? So if a group of people are property and only have rights as property that has no political face? That if they have no freedom that it has no political face?

It was political, it was social, it was economic, it was cultural....

and it was legal in canada until britain outlawed the practice, empire-wide, in the 1820s...

glass houses and all...

Hi GentleGiant!

Dramatis Personae wrote:

Aberzombie wrote:

...which is probably about as close as you can get to a true democracy.

America is as close as you can get to a true democracy? That's just not true.

-Kruelaid

Nobody wants a true democracy. I promise. Couldn't work with a group of 200 to 300 million people anyway.

a true "democracy" always winds up two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner...

We need a viable third party. I'm tired of both mainstream parties, then having my pet indie 3rd party nominate a knuckleheaded loudmouth ex-Republican. SIGH ....

WHIGS IN 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

well, the original Libertarians were, um, Republicans tired of nixon...

This is a pretty cool thread (apart from aberzombie being aggresively patronising). It's really interesting to hear people from other countries talking about their elections.

You should be glad that you're all making positive choices - it looks like here in the UK we're going to have a really negative vote. The incumbent will go because he's lost the plot; rather than the Tory having any great policies.

I would like to point out thought that the British National Health Service in the UK is going great guns (60 years old this year - a legacy of WWII).

The only bad thing is a few of those moments when people abuse the word liberal. I feel like I'm a character from The Princess Bride; "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

"liberal" in american modern usage does not mean liberal in the classical (lockean) sense. i understand that this confuses a lot of brits, but "liberal" in the US is a "catchall" used to describe, to varying degrees, socialists, radical environmentalists, syndicalists,(i.e. the political "left"). "conservative", in US parlance, is used for religious zealots, reactionaries, capitalists, (i.e. the political "right".

as you can tell, both are often used perjoratively.

the classic "liberal" used to be espoused by the original Libertarian Party, which was formed by people much closer in thought to Barry Goldwater than to Ron Paul. there was a schizm in the party in the early 80's, when the party was coopted from the true "fiscal conservatives" by the more "social liberals", to use modern american usage...

Aberzombie wrote:

At least they're a working democracy.

True. Iran has a working democracy, too, of course.

A working democracy is a term we might not want to explore, though, because America's democracy will come up sooner or later. How do you like your choice of candidates lately?

iran's version of a "working democracy":

"you think women have RIGHTS? sorry, your party is banned..."

"you think israel shouldn't be wiped off the map?? sorry, your party is banned..."

"you think people should be allowed to dress how they likr, asscoiate with whom they like, and access whatever infidel web pages they like??? sorry, your party is banned..."