McCain vs. D&D


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Polevoi wrote:
With Obama constantly reiterating that McCain is just going to continue with the same policies as Bush this derogatory statement about D&D was clearly an attempt by McCain to distance himself from Bush; who clearly plays D&D.

Ah, but it goes so much farther than this. For example:

The Adventures of DM Dubya


McCain's just showing he's hip and with it, Daddyo. He probably just rented that D&D movie with Tom Hanks and he want to protect the country's youth from D&D's dangerous influence. Next, he's going to reinstate the Comics Code and enforce Decency on TV. Course that would gut the Faux TV lineup so he'll probably have to flip flop on that one.
---
I liked the comment. "Well, that lost McCain a whole three votes."

Scarab Sages

Reposting my stuff from the other thread:

I can't believe how low McCain's campaign has fallen. I liked McCain. A lot. Before he started his second run and exchanged stupid blows with Romney. Now he's just become a caricature of a himself. Genuine hero... but man, what a pitiful campaign.

Obama FTW.

Dark Archive

Sebastian wrote:


Which is why, if you elect me president, the first thing I will do is eliminate everyone else's right to vote.

We nominated you, Sebastian, as our El Magnifico Presidente Extrordinere {tm} when we had the misfired Junta.

The firing squad still has openings.

Baron Arem Heshvaun
Minister of Re-education (The Junta is Victorious on All Fronts),
Secretly Minister of Workforce Exploitation,
Sebastians's Mouthpiece

The Exchange

That's not change I can believe in!

Cheers,
Zuxius


F*%k him and John Wayne!

Scarab Sages

pres man wrote:
Also, if we had started drilling 7-15 years ago, then we'd have the only now. Does anyone seriously believe there will be no demand in 7-15 years in the future?

Check out this Michael Ramirez cartoon archive. The 30 April cartoon says it perfectly. They've been arguing so long against drilling, that if they had started it then, the delay they are talking about would be over.

I think its a moot point anyway. The oil companies have already demonstrated the ability to get a platform up an running in a pretty short span. Take Shell's Brutus platform for example - they decided on the location for the platform in early 1999 (April I think). They then built the platform, put in place, and had it fully operational by August of 2001 - just a little over 2 years time.


Tobus Neth wrote:

F*%k him and John Wayne!

Got a problem, Pilgrim?


Sebastian wrote:
Lou wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
If this comment is sufficient to affect your vote, I'd wager you shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Damn skippy.
For shame on you both, and you know it. Satisfying thought, I agree, but un-american. I may not agree with their stupidity, but I'll defend their right to vote stupid. Such is the law of the land.

Cool. Make sure to let all the people who won't vote for Obama because he's a double-secret muslim know that their ignorance should not preclude them from voting.

Un-American? Wtf does that even mean?

I think the wise sage Homer J. Simpson said it best: "When will people learn? Democracy just doesn't work."

Which is why, if you elect me president, the first thing I will do is eliminate everyone else's right to vote.

All the freaking morons who won't vote for Obama because he's a double-secret muslim are not precluded from voting by their ridiculous ignorance.

And that's a good thing.

Un-American? That's simple. To preclude them from voting because of our disgust with their ignorance would be unconstitutional. More generally, precluding people from the political process on the basis of one's personal disagreement with their beliefs or stance on issues contravenes the spirit of our democratic process. That's what "un-american" means.

(Side note: I enjoy throwing the phrase at the extremist right wing -- not lumping anyone in that group, here -- as they frequently act in an "un-American" way while claiming to be defending "America").

Can I tell you how glad I am you're not the new American dictator, Sebastian? ;)


Sebastian wrote:
Which is why, if you elect me president, the first thing I will do is eliminate everyone else's right to vote.

Wait, when did Hugo Chavez start using Sebastian's account?

Liberty's Edge

I really could not care less what either candidate thinks about my favorite hobby. I am FAR more concerned about what they plan to do to get the prices of gas and food down so I can spend more money on said favorite hobby. And saying that just because somebody doesn't like something that they're going to try to ban it is ludicrous. I'm no fan of professional sports, but were I to wind up in office, banning pro sports wouldn't even be ON my list of things to do. Lowering taxes (a Polish-style 15% flat tax would be my ultimate goal, here), pushing for both more domestic drilling and alternative fuel research (via some generous tax incentives), hunting down terrorists in Afghanistan, getting Iraq standing on its own two feet, allowing parents to choose which schools their kids attend via school vouchers, getting rid of the idea that people in this country have a right to never be offended by anything that supersedes the first Amendment (I'm looking at ALL of you on BOTH sides of the aisle on that one. The gays can parade, the neo-Nazis can spew their hideous rhetoric, AND the Christians can put up their nativity scenes, and ALL of you will get no traction doing anything but TALKING about it. And I don't mean through lawyers in court!) securing our borders (and then streamlining the legal immigration process; come on in, just let us know who you are and where you're from) and setting up a solid nuclear-based power grid (Who'da thunk the French would have the answer on this? In a vacuum, my money would have been on the Germans) would be MORE than enough to keep me busy.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Insert Neat Username Here wrote:
James Sutter wrote:

So I don't normally post about politics, and I almost never post to the site from home, but I thought this was interesting enough to be worth pointing out. John McCain's campaign just took a fairly significant swipe at Dungeons & Dragons for no apparent reason.

From the campaign's website:

"It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd to disparage a fellow countryman's memory of war from the comfort of mom's basement, but most Americans have the humility and gratitude to respect and learn from the memories of men who suffered on behalf of others."

link

Crazy.

So much for that apology he made earlier for a statement insulting D&D.

Also, this doesn't help him win over the "pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd," and likely diminishes his credibility with much of the pro-McCain Dungeons & Dragons crowd.

He was a lot more concerned with winning over the Bible-thumping fundamentalist crowd which has not been happy with him as the presumptive nominee. He's pretty sure that overall that crowd is going to generate more votes for him than a bunch of game players who most likely can't be bothered to vote anyway.


Not a McCain supporter myself, but this was Goldfarb's comment. *He's* the idiot here. (experimenting with fairness here :P)


cannon fodder wrote:

Not a McCain supporter myself, but this was Goldfarb's comment. *He's* the idiot here. (experimenting with fairness here :P)

Fairness in an online messageboard? What are you thinking? LOL

Personally, I think the modern political trend of spin-doctors and overly emphasized PR teams merely gives jobs to the morons of the world who could never themselves get elected because ... well ... they're morons.

However, I agree witcha, CF

Sovereign Court

To heck with McCain's staffers - they're obviously incompetents looking for any mud to sling about, and they've decided that D&D is some kind of perjorative term. Honestly, neither McCain nor Obama have earned my vote, as both represent the failed system rather than the solution.

I'm part of the "Pro Bob Barr D&D crowd," and proud of it.

:D


LazarX wrote:
He's pretty sure that overall that crowd is going to generate more votes for him than a bunch of game players who most likely can't be bothered to vote anyway.

Well if they didn't hold it during the day that I game, I might! I mean we have to have priorities.

Liberty's Edge

Mikaze wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
I just read that Obama's lead has shrunk - maybe the comment is working after all...
Never underestimate the conservative White Wolf base.

I always underestimate that guy.


Sploooooorrrrtch

Liberty's Edge

*tackle-hugs vomit guy*

I'll defeat him with unexpected kindness!

Dark Archive

Ex Army, Iraq War Veteran. While I couldn't give you exact numbers, there were certainly a number of gamers that I encountered in the military - definitely higher than the percentage of the regular population. Of course, the number of WoW players was much higher, but...

At any rate, this stunt won't affect my vote. I was already for Obama due to general agreement with most of his policies, but mostly because I don't think we can afford four more years of a Republican Presidency. I used to have faith in them, and in McCain (voted for/donated to him in the 2000 primaries even), but the last 8 years have disabused me of that notion.

Scarab Sages

Timespike wrote:
I really could not care less what either candidate thinks about my favorite hobby. I am FAR more concerned about what they plan to do to get the prices of gas and food down so I can spend more money on said favorite hobby. And saying that just because somebody doesn't like something that they're going to try to ban it is ludicrous. I'm no fan of professional sports, but were I to wind up in office, banning pro sports wouldn't even be ON my list of things to do. Lowering taxes (a Polish-style 15% flat tax would be my ultimate goal, here), pushing for both more domestic drilling and alternative fuel research (via some generous tax incentives), hunting down terrorists in Afghanistan, getting Iraq standing on its own two feet, allowing parents to choose which schools their kids attend via school vouchers, getting rid of the idea that people in this country have a right to never be offended by anything that supersedes the first Amendment (I'm looking at ALL of you on BOTH sides of the aisle on that one. The gays can parade, the neo-Nazis can spew their hideous rhetoric, AND the Christians can put up their nativity scenes, and ALL of you will get no traction doing anything but TALKING about it. And I don't mean through lawyers in court!) securing our borders (and then streamlining the legal immigration process; come on in, just let us know who you are and where you're from) and setting up a solid nuclear-based power grid (Who'da thunk the French would have the answer on this? In a vacuum, my money would have been on the Germans) would be MORE than enough to keep me busy.

Timespike - throw in term limits for congress and I'll be nominating your a$$ for president! You've just 'said' the smartest things I have 'heard' in a long, long time!


James Sutter wrote:

So I don't normally post about politics, and I almost never post to the site from home, but I thought this was interesting enough to be worth pointing out. John McCain's campaign just took a fairly significant swipe at Dungeons & Dragons for no apparent reason.

From the campaign's website:

"It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd to disparage a fellow countryman's memory of war from the comfort of mom's basement, but most Americans have the humility and gratitude to respect and learn from the memories of men who suffered on behalf of others."

link

Crazy.

I cannot get the link to work.

Scarab Sages

Sebastian wrote:


Which isn't to say it's not obnoxious. It is. But I think the posters attributing it to an overzealous mouthpiece have the better of it. I can't imagine someone like McCain even realizes D&D exists, and to the extent he does, he could probably care less about it.

Well, he has grandkids, so maybe they play WoW, and so McCain, coming up with some zippy one-liners against Obama, asked them for help.

"Grampa, Dungeons & Dragons sucks! Only nerds play that game! You should say Democrats play D&D!"

"Hehehe. I have no idea what it is, but it's perfect, thanks kids. Here's 5 cents for penny candy!"

Sovereign Court

BabbageUK wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
...neither even come close to reflecting the real beliefs of the vast unwashed masses any more...
I'm afraid that's true the world over. Politicians don't live in the real world, so what would they know?

I'm not sure if that was meant to be ironic. = )

Liberty's Edge

Fire_Wraith wrote:
I was already for Obama due to general agreement with most of his policies...

would those be the february "primary season" policies, or the complete 180 from february's rhetoric, new and shiny august "general election" policies? just curious...

Sovereign Court

Mayr wrote:


Timespike - throw in term limits for congress and I'll be nominating your a$$ for president! You've just 'said' the smartest things I have 'heard' in a long, long time!

Term limits? I say we stop paying them so much and let the problem sort itself out. If the average senator or representative made as much as a schoolteacher, maybe we'd start seeing candidates who want the job for more noble reasons.

Liberty's Edge

Seriously? How completely inept and ridiculous is this guy.

The stereo-type of gamers is that we live in our parents basement, can't get a date, and have bad social skills because we only talk about the real world in game terms, i.e. "that babe has a charisma of 20!" There is nothing in the stereo-type including anything anti-patriotic or pacifistic or even political for that matter. C'mon! We play a game pretending to be warriors fighting the bad guys!

I'm less offended that he attempted to pick on D&D players than I am at the fact that he blatantly engaged in stereo-typing and couldn't even get that right. If someone wants to pick on D&D players, then at least let them have a relevant point, but equating gamers to unpatriotic, disrespectful, pacifists isn't even supported by the over-generalization he supports nevermind the current or former gamers who serve or have served in the military.

He is being disrespectful in his attempt to show that being disrespectful is inappropriate... so in other words he's an uninformed hypocrite who'd toss un-empowered minority under the bus in order to make himself look better for minor political gain. Is that really the image he wants to project for the man who employs him? I think it's just bad judgment.

But don't mind me I'm just a gamer who lacks good social skills and intelligence -- I couldn't possibly be taken seriously. And BTW, epic fail on the diplomacy check loser face.

Liberty's Edge

Christopher Carrig 946 wrote:
Mayr wrote:


Timespike - throw in term limits for congress and I'll be nominating your a$$ for president! You've just 'said' the smartest things I have 'heard' in a long, long time!

Term limits? I say we stop paying them so much and let the problem sort itself out. If the average senator or representative made as much as a schoolteacher, maybe we'd start seeing candidates who want the job for more noble reasons.

I would say $60,000-$80,000 a year and a $5,000 travel allowance should be enough for a senator or congressman. If they don't like it, they can drill and incentivise other energy types so they're not feeling the pinch any more. And while they're doing that, the rest of us will get some relief, too.


Sometimes it seems like everyone is just waiting for their turn to be outraged and offended.

Liberty's Edge

James Keegan wrote:
Sometimes it seems like everyone is just waiting for their turn to be outraged and offended.

amen.

i honestly doubt mccain lost one vote over this at all. mccain didn't even say it, some idiot staffer did, and, for all of this "concern" for the military gamers, well, they have bigger things to consider than one retarded line from a blog...

most of the posters i see being "outraged" in this thread i've seen bashing republicans in general, and mccain specifically, in other threads, so it isn't like he lost their votes...

oh, and to whomever was referring to the "millions" of military gamers, considering our armed forces are only about 4.5 million strong COLLECTIVELY (that is, all branches combined), i'd say the number of gamers in the military are considerably less than your estimate. i was in the army, and maybe 5% of the people i met were rpgers (and this was in the golden age of gaming - the late 80's to early 90's, when, frankly, there were a hell of a lot more people playing rpgs than there are now...)

and, god, if anyone SERIOUSLY thinks obama is any less of a fake a**munch than mccain is, just wow...

Liberty's Edge

Sebastian wrote:
I just read that Obama's lead has shrunk - maybe the comment is working after all...

Actually, I'm pretty sure it's because the media has decided that sales will be better if the race is tighter. Be prepared for some major Obama bashing in the near future. (Is it too much to hope for an objective AND critical eye to both candidates?)

Dark Archive

Saurstalk wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
I just read that Obama's lead has shrunk - maybe the comment is working after all...
Actually, I'm pretty sure it's because the media has decided that sales will be better if the race is tighter. Be prepared for some major Obama bashing in the near future. (Is it too much to hope for an objective AND critical eye to both candidates?)

Yes there is...just go watch the BBC. :)

Dark Archive

I'd post a more detailed set of examples where I agree with Obama - not on everything, certainly, but I find that I have no deal-breaking issues with him.

houstonderek wrote:

and, god, if anyone SERIOUSLY thinks obama is any less of a fake a**munch than mccain is, just wow...

Politicians are, in the end, politicians. There is a strong difference, though, in the people they surround themselves with, and whom they put into office around them. There have been far weaker men elected to the presidency than Bush, who managed to muddle through even still, simply due to the fact that they appointed good people to help them, or had those appointments pushed on them by their supporters.

After the last eight years, I have less than zero faith in the Republican Party to act in any way but their own naked self-interest. I have watched them put party and personal loyalty above all other considerations, including the good of the country. This is not to say that the Democrats are by any means pure, but they have clearly become the lesser of two evils. There was once a time when I felt McCain was different from the rest of the party on this, but his willingness to do anything and everything to win the nomination of his own party, has persuaded me otherwise.

Bottom line - we can afford the screwups that a Democratic candidate, as President, would make. We cannot afford those that another Republican would bring. That's my opinion, at least.

Liberty's Edge

before i take this point by point, understand i consider both parties equally evil...

Fire_Wraith wrote:
Politicians are, in the end, politicians. There is a strong difference, though, in the people they surround themselves with, and whom they put into office around them. There have been far weaker men elected to the presidency than Bush, who managed to muddle through even still, simply due to the fact that they appointed good people to help them, or had those appointments pushed on them by their supporters.

obama's entire foreign policy staff is, basically, anti-israel, completely "french" in their worldview (i.e. stick your head in the sand and hope for the best...), and have done nothing to help obama look like he has any understanding of world history...

his personal associations (wright, ayers, rezco) do nothing to give me faith that he has any judgement whatsoever...

Fire_Wraith wrote:
After the last eight years, I have less than zero faith in the Republican Party to act in any way but their own naked self-interest. I have watched them put party and personal loyalty above all other considerations, including the good of the country. This is not to say that the Democrats are by any means pure, but they have clearly become the lesser of two evils. There was once a time when I felt McCain was different from the rest of the party on this, but his willingness to do anything and everything to win the nomination of his own party, has persuaded me otherwise.

obama has done a complete 180 on every position he had when the primaries started since he clinched the nomination. he assumes he has the party faithful in the bag, so now he's going to lie to the general public as to not look like the hard leftie he is...

even the posters at the daily kos and huffington post are having "wtf?" moments over his policy reversals...

Fire_Wraith wrote:
Bottom line - we can afford the screwups that a Democratic candidate, as President, would make. We cannot afford those that another Republican would bring. That's my opinion, at least.

yeah, following every carter policy point to the letter is exactly what we need. its a shame that his biggest support group aren't old enough to remember carter, 12% unemployment, stagflation, the effect "windfall taxes" for oil companies had on an already fragile (after nixon's screw ups) economy, disco, and his disasterous foreign policy (did i mention that his - obama's - senior foreign policy advisor is zbigniew brzezinski? - great call on letting the shah in, buddy...)

obama is an empty suit, who has ZERO legislation to hang a hat on, who misrepresents his voting record (he has cast very few votes on anything, in fact), who, although being the editor of the harvard law review and a professor at the u of chicago, has ZERO academic papers to his credit, has actually accomplished NOTHING of substance to show for his "admirable" resume...

like i said, and will keep saying, there are NO good choices this time around...

(and, sorry libertarians, bob barr is lying to you, he is still the same extreme right wing a**munch he always was...)


Tell it, Derek! Carter's entire presidency was a disaster. I'd vote for Obama only if he promised to smile and not actually do anything -- which, given his reputed prowess and "risk-averse" style at poker, is likely to be exactly the case. I still wish he'd get a retired military general/admiral as a running mate, however.

McCain scares me a bit, insofar as he's too likely to act on issues he knows nothing about -- God knows where that would lead us. If he thought "D&D" was a Russian missile, he'd certainly nuke WotC. But a vote for Obama is a vote for 4 years with no government!

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Tell it, Derek! Carter's entire presidency was a disaster. I'd vote for Obama only if he promised to smile and not actually do anything -- which, given his reputed prowess and "risk-averse" style at poker, is likely to be exactly the case. I still wish he'd get a retired military general/admiral as a running mate, however.

McCain scares me a bit, insofar as he's too likely to act on issues he knows nothing about -- God knows where that would lead us. If he thought "D&D" was a Russian missile, he'd certainly nuke WotC. But a vote for Obama is a vote for 4 years with no government!

i wouldn't mind obama and a republican congress, NOTHING would get done for four years, like the second half of the clinton presidency (good times, happy economy ;) )

obama with a democrat congress scares the hell out of me, frankly (think the first six years of bush, with domestic disasters instead of foreign policy disasters...)

(Kirth, how's your trip? you home yet?)

Dark Archive

Kirth Gersen wrote:
But a vote for Obama is a vote for 4 years with no government!

Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who said "Government is not the solution to the problem: government is the problem."

So does this mean that the real Republicans would want to vote for Obama?

Liberty's Edge

kikai13 wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
But a vote for Obama is a vote for 4 years with no government!

Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who said "Government is not the solution to the problem: government is the problem."

So does this mean that the real Republicans would want to vote for Obama?

only if the republicans could get the house and senate (which isn't happening any time soon, i think).

the problem with the republican party is there are no more republicans. there are only RINOS (who are as spend happy as the dems were in their 50 years of power after WW2) and religious nuts. the small government, personal responsibility, "who cares about people's personal lives" lockean, rousseau-ean, goethean types are long gone (they were the original Libertarians, but they were shown the door by the weirdos who run that party now in the early eighties...)

to paraphrase stealer's wheels "marxists to the left of me, a**munches to the right, stuck in the middle with no one to vote for..."


houstonderek wrote:


i wouldn't mind obama and a republican congress, NOTHING would get done for four years, like the second half of the clinton presidency (good times, happy economy ;) )

I hope not! If you get a president doing nothing for four years, the economic problems in the US won´t get any better (can you say subprime?). My guess is with the present economic troubles doing nothing won't do any good at all.

What's more, if the US economy is meant to get stable again, you should not turn a blind eye to foreign policy as well, with Russia wanting to return as a superpower by all means, Chinas economy turning into a huge steamroller and India getting stronger every day as well, not to mention the terrorism problem still running rampant in the Near East. And "my" European Union being divided and weak and not able to speak with one voice (my "own" chancellor Merkel trying not to act at all, President Sarkozy of France being his own one-man-show, Italy having Berlusconi, who is having a lot of domestic problems and being of doubtful adherence to laws, and Great Britain having a weak Prime Minister in Gordon Brown. Poland has this strange twins, even if only one of the Kaczynskis is President right now. I haven't heard much of Spain lately, besides that horrific plane crash in Madrid yesterday, and terrorist bombings by the ETA in the last few weeks.)

To put it in a nutshell, I hope for a strong president in the US getting a handle on the domestic problems and being reasonable with the foreign policies, free from ideologic blinds. IMO, the world still needs a strong US of A.

Stefan

Liberty's Edge

Stebehil wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


i wouldn't mind obama and a republican congress, NOTHING would get done for four years, like the second half of the clinton presidency (good times, happy economy ;) )

I hope not! If you get a president doing nothing for four years, the economic problems in the US won´t get any better (can you say subprime?). My guess is with the present economic troubles doing nothing won't do any good at all.

What's more, if the US economy is meant to get stable again, you should not turn a blind eye to foreign policy as well, with Russia wanting to return as a superpower by all means, Chinas economy turning into a huge steamroller and India getting stronger every day as well, not to mention the terrorism problem still running rampant in the Near East. And "my" European Union being divided and weak and not able to speak with one voice (my "own" chancellor Merkel trying not to act at all, President Sarkozy of France being his own one-man-show, Italy having Berlusconi, who is having a lot of domestic problems and being of doubtful adherence to laws, and Great Britain having a weak Prime Minister in Gordon Brown. Poland has this strange twins, even if only one of the Kaczynskis is President right now. I haven't heard much of Spain lately, besides that horrific plane crash in Madrid yesterday, and terrorist bombings by the ETA in the last few weeks.)

To put it in a nutshell, I hope for a strong president in the US getting a handle on the domestic problems and being reasonable with the foreign policies, free from ideologic blinds. IMO, the world still needs a strong US of A.

Stefan

you're german, so you may not understand that the U.S. economy does very well with LESS government interference. we don't have socialism anywhere near the european norm here, and our wealth is mostly in the hands of individuals who tend to take their toys (investment money) away (save) when government gets too hands on with the economy. part of the reason the U.S. portion of the depression lasted until lend-lease in '40 was that the rich were hoarding, not investing, in the tax environment roosevelt created with the new deal...

when clinton was in the white house, and the republicans controlled both houses of congress, neither party could take control of economic policy, and basically did very little to upset the apple cart. and we had one of the largest spurts of economic growth in our history.

The Exchange

Fire_Wraith wrote:

Ex Army, Iraq War Veteran. While I couldn't give you exact numbers, there were certainly a number of gamers that I encountered in the military - definitely higher than the percentage of the regular population. Of course, the number of WoW players was much higher, but...

At any rate, this stunt won't affect my vote. I was already for Obama due to general agreement with most of his policies, but mostly because I don't think we can afford four more years of a Republican Presidency. I used to have faith in them, and in McCain (voted for/donated to him in the 2000 primaries even), but the last 8 years have disabused me of that notion.

Yea, I was in the Army. I played D&D. I went to Young Republican meetings. I voted for Bush. I believed that a strong military is equivalent to a safe homeland. Republicans embodied that. My father also told me that it was always a democrat that got us into wars.

Politics aside, you can't be sure about anything today. One thing I am sure of though, the more people in this world, the less each of them are worth, including U.S. Citizens. Everything is getting expensive because there is less of it to go around. When companies go to third world countries and harvest their labor, U.S. labor is no more valueable than the third world guys. In a sense, we may have a strong economy driven by consumption, but we can't go against the collective cheap labor of the entire world and expect to keep making the same amount of money. We will collapse as a rich nation as other nations take their share.

All these wars, welfare programs, and tax money we give to foreign nations (to sell Coca Cola to) are eroding the system. You hear our parents telling us of the time they went to bed with a hot water bottle (because their rooms weren't heated) and a glass of water that turned to ice by morning and you have to scratch your head and say, "When will we realize that we are going back that way?" We can be priced out of our living standard. A 900 dollar a month electric bill. A 15 dollar agallon of gas. Taxes that make it cheaper to be poor than to have anything at all.

I hate Republicans because they refuse to admit there is something wrong with the direction they are going in. They are infallable even when there is no game plan to solve any problems nor any belief that there is a problem. They would rather place blindfolds on us in a burning barn than try to lead us out of it. Status qou is their only defense they have to just about anything. "Nothing is wrong! Stay seated as we figure out how to keep this plane in the air, forever. Don't worry about the low fuel light, we know it will be alright because we are in charge."

Yea, I am with Obama. I am ready to suffer change and even sacrifice if need be. We are living the last days of the lie. I hope I live to leave the barn before my burning blindfold shows me it is too late.

And on a side note, I thought Democrats were always interested in spending our money on social programs, but today I am toast without any possibility of a decent health plan. What happened to getting decent medical care without declaring bankruptcy? These are very inhumane times with legal wrangling pricing everyone out of care. I really get upset though when I see our Armed Forces consuming so much abroad when the dream at home is going to pot. What are we defending here? A person should come back from a conflict with a feeling they actually did something to maintain our way of life and protect the ones they love. Not the case here. We have total decline because no one is doing what "must" be done at home.

Bait and switch.

Wag the Dog.

At least Obama would restore the world's faith in the American people to lead their country by well set examples. Not some old white lich of a skeleton that bangs the can to the oldies but moldies.

Aaah, should not have started writting on this garbage.

Cheers,
Zuxius

The Exchange

Stebehil wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


i wouldn't mind obama and a republican congress, NOTHING would get done for four years, like the second half of the clinton presidency (good times, happy economy ;) )

I hope not! If you get a president doing nothing for four years, the economic problems in the US won´t get any better (can you say subprime?). My guess is with the present economic troubles doing nothing won't do any good at all.

What's more, if the US economy is meant to get stable again, you should not turn a blind eye to foreign policy as well, with Russia wanting to return as a superpower by all means, Chinas economy turning into a huge steamroller and India getting stronger every day as well, not to mention the terrorism problem still running rampant in the Near East. And "my" European Union being divided and weak and not able to speak with one voice (my "own" chancellor Merkel trying not to act at all, President Sarkozy of France being his own one-man-show, Italy having Berlusconi, who is having a lot of domestic problems and being of doubtful adherence to laws, and Great Britain having a weak Prime Minister in Gordon Brown. Poland has this strange twins, even if only one of the Kaczynskis is President right now. I haven't heard much of Spain lately, besides that horrific plane crash in Madrid yesterday, and terrorist bombings by the ETA in the last few weeks.)

To put it in a nutshell, I hope for a strong president in the US getting a handle on the domestic problems and being reasonable with the foreign policies, free from ideologic blinds. IMO, the world still needs a strong US of A.

Stefan

Actually Stefan, I would hope for a strong Germany too. The U.S. needs a power like that to stay strong in the world arena. Everyone is looking to everyone else and I believe the terror countries are getting ready to play some serious weaponry cards. It can't be stopped. The U.S. will suffer more devastating attacks in the future. No doubt some will be nuclear. We can't stop these people and their wild ideas to breach our security. The loss of an American city would have a devastating effect on the world economy, let alone 5-6 cities destroyed worldwide. These weapons are real and they do catastrophic damage that cannot be fixed. I hate to say this, but the world populations are creating a lot of suffering and desperation. There is no bottom to this suffering and a fanatical belief system may be the only plausible escape for many.

The U.S. government has not done the U.S. people justice in the last 4 years and I am sure the world isn't any better either. I find it hard to believe that the U.S. is running around Ex-Eastern Bloc countries proposing missile defense systems that would have been World War 3 just 20 years ago. I really think the Russians are responding within their recent heritage and sovereignty. It is so blatantly in their face that I can't imagine the anger they are building up over this. I am not saying the Russians are saints or anything, but this is a taboo thing to do. Their will be ramifications as the Russian people feel their strength as a nation being tested.

I can't read anymore of these posts. I am sure to say something that will make others upset with me.

Cheers,
Zuxius


Zuxius wrote:
Actually Stefan, I would hope for a strong Germany too.

Well, Germany can only act within the European Union (or the NATO) - and getting one voice if you need to ask 20something countries for their votes is a troublesome and loooong process. Look at the Treaty of Lisbon and the Irish vote against it - a minority vote has the power to stop a very important process, and you get an idea of the problems of the EU.

Regarding German engagement in military conflicts the world over: This is a very touchy subject due to historical reasons. I know the demands for more engagement from the US and others, but this topic is hotly debated in the Bundestag every time.

Stefan


Zuxius wrote:

Not some old white lich of a skeleton that bangs the can to the oldies but moldies.

Aaah, should not have started writting on this garbage.

Indeed. We can do without the racism and ageism. White people are not all evil and senior citizens should not all be disposed of like some version of dystopia from Logan's Run.

Dark Archive

houstonderek wrote:


to paraphrase stealer's wheels "marxists to the left of me, a**munches to the right, stuck in the middle with no one to vote for..."

I would vote for Bob Barr, but I'm afraid that a vote for Barr is going to end up as a vote for Obama. I would rather have McCain, who I will agree with 70% of the time and have to fight on the other 30%, than Obama who I will agree with 30% of the time and have to fight on 70%.

Sovereign Court

David Fryer wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


to paraphrase stealer's wheels "marxists to the left of me, a**munches to the right, stuck in the middle with no one to vote for..."

I would vote for Bob Barr, but I'm afraid that a vote for Barr is going to end up as a vote for Obama. I would rather have McCain, who I will agree with 70% of the time and have to fight on the other 30%, than Obama who I will agree with 30% of the time and have to fight on 70%.

Which is unfortunately why we keep having to choose between a douchebag and a shit sandwich every 4 years. Seriously every time an election comes up so many people say, well I don't want to vote for either of them but I will because I'm afraid that if I don't the other will win. You know what's worse than voting for someone you believe in and loosing. Continuing to watch as people choose from two choices they hate again and again and again because they are afraid of any alternatives.

I am going to vote for Bob Barr, you know what, it's entirely possible he's lying and is still a conservative ( and believe me when I say I don't like the conservative moral agenda). But at least I know that when it came time to say what do you believe in, I can say I believe in maximum personal freedom and limited government, and I'll vote for that no matter what.

I remember last election how mad people got at me for voting third party. it's a sad state our government is in when instead of having groups representing every interest we have two homogonized groups that can only vaguely stand for anything.

And back to the topic of McCain vs. D&D it's an ignorant staffer who is attacking obama supporters not the game itself and yes its a poor stereotype but you know what, no matter the party you can't avoid stupid people, luckily the man who said it isn't running for president.

Grand Lodge

Mikaze wrote:
Callum Finlayson wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
He's probably just had some terrible DM experiences. Grudges are hard to let go.
Dubya killed off his favorite character.

Bush Jr : Okay, Degomorgon has Jahn the fighter in a grapple! You take 34 damage from constrictin'.

McCain : DAMMIT! I'M NOT NEARLY CLOSE ENOUGH FOR TH-

Cheney : My ranger takes aim and fires at his tentacles to free Jahn!

McCain : NO!

I heard Clinton's bard stayed back in town most of the time to carouse. Perot only played gnomes and kind of weirded everyone else out.

AWESOME!

Grand Lodge

David Fryer wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


to paraphrase stealer's wheels "marxists to the left of me, a**munches to the right, stuck in the middle with no one to vote for..."

I would vote for Bob Barr, but I'm afraid that a vote for Barr is going to end up as a vote for Obama. I would rather have McCain, who I will agree with 70% of the time and have to fight on the other 30%, than Obama who I will agree with 30% of the time and have to fight on 70%.

I am going to vote for Bob Barr. It is time we stood up to the corrupt system and voted our real conscience. If everyone actually voted their conscience rather than what the media and the powers-that-be want us to vote, we might actually get a real government.

Politics... the ultimate welfare!


He should have gone for the geek vote and talked about pro-Obama WoD players (where he might have bene right).

About this affecting voting habits...I haven't been paying that close attention to development of candidacies in US lately, but if I have understood correctly this is not the first more or less random uselessly disparaging comment McCain has thrown around? Is that really a sign of a good candidate? Will he handle, say, foreign policy in the same manner?


Michael Moore meets LotR

Spoiler:
Sauron, Saruman, Susan Sarandon, Salamanders, Sauron, Saruman

101 to 150 of 160 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / McCain vs. D&D All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.