Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Occupy Wall Street!


Off-Topic Discussions

1,151 to 1,200 of 2,124 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>
Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Typical OWS violent rhetoric and mindset.
Huh!?

It was in response to BNW comment about of lynch mobs and lynch mob mentality being a "purer" form of democracy.

Quote:
Quote:
And, of course, being accused of "hating" for expressing a different view isn't really the most democratic way of addressing things...
Lynch mobs are one of the purer forms of democracy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Why do I feel like someone just took a dump in the pool?

Don't worry, it's just a Baby Ruth. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My latest and greatest notion (for which you are all indebted to me I'm sure):

It doesn't matter what they want. It doesn't matter if they're organized.

The tea party and OWS are barometers of social unrest. They won't achieve anything that they actually try to do, but they will achieve something just by being dissatisfied and there.

The only way to to get rid of the unrest (no matter what they think they want) is to improve the general conditions. Or a complete effing meltdown.

Nobody wants that, but it will happen if it happens.

Plus side: change is inevitable. Down side: it ends in defanged legislation or the guillotine.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Or is the point that neither the Tea Party or OWS are as "grassroots" as they claim?

The majors will always try to co-opt movements and sidle up to them for "street cred".

Just a bunch of posturing to hide the fact that Dems and Repubs are garbage criminals*.

*The pols. Not necessarily the voters. The voters are just idiots who think there's a whiff of difference between the two once you get past the superficial social stuff.

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Evil Lincoln wrote:


The only way to to get rid of the unrest (no matter what they think they want) is to improve the general conditions. Or a complete effing meltdown.

Maybe the ruler could build a temple/cathedral/coliseum to reduce unrest levels. Or, take some people off the farm fields and turn them into little Elvises!

Andoran

bugleyman wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Why do I feel like someone just took a dump in the pool?
Don't worry, it's just a Baby Ruth. :P

Damn, one of my favorite movies!

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Oooh ooh, Aux, tell me more about 'typical OWS rhetoric and mindset'! I'm just a poor impressionable soldier who doesn't know what to think!

What you should be thinking is "flag it an move on".

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What good would that do? And it certainly won't increase my postcount either.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
What good would that do? And it certainly won't increase my postcount either.

Maybe it would make you feel better - as a person.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm a person now, and not just a caricature for you to slander?

Sometimes you call in the airstrike, sometimes you just hit each other with nerf bats.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
TOZ wrote:

I'm a person now, and not just a caricature for you to slander?

Sometimes you call in the airstrike, sometimes you just hit each other with nerf bats.

Ok, maybe it will make you feel better - as a caricature.

Is "flag it and move on" slander? Or is this part of a holdover grudge from that "elitist gamer" comment/accusation I made a while back?

Shadow Lodge

Well, you ran away and never answered my question on that one if I remember right, but no, this is entirely confined to this thread. And no, I find 'flag it and move on' excellent advice, even when I choose not to follow it.

Edit: Whoops, my mistake. Memory isn't that great. Thanks for contributing to my postcount though!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
Caineach wrote:

Survey results for OWS. It has some interesting demographic results from a 300 person study.

73% Dislike Obama's policies
42% said they would vote democrat in a national election ...

So 42% of the people protesting against the 1% are going to vote the 1% back into office (even though they don't like his policies)?

* head explodes *

Kang and Kodos in Treehouse of Horror VII.

This would be funny if it weren't so close to the truth.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its the matter of voting for the lesser of two evils. Not liking our two party system and not acknowledging its existence aren't the same thing. Your choices are Obama, one of the republicans, or Obamaclone Romney.

I will not like it nor serve it and believe that anyone who votes for the lesser of two evils is as ignorant as the casual racist of 50-100 years ago. You just follow the herd like a good little sheep even though you know it's wrong.

You realize that it's the Democrats and Republicans that tell you that you have to vote for them? You serve your masters well.

Kryzbyn wrote:
Somewhere between "Free markets deserve to be free of oversight!" rhetoric and the "Goverment should own everythign and divy it all up!" rhetoric, is a good solution waiting to be found. So far, neither the tea PArty nor the OWS people have found it, or even come close.

Yeah, there's an answer all right. People aren't intelligent enough to see it obviously.

.

Let's all keep electing the 1%, though. I'm sure things will getting better any day now.


houstonderek wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Why do I feel like someone just took a dump in the pool?
Don't worry, it's just a Baby Ruth. :P
Damn, one of my favorite movies!

Dood, I just saw that movie in its entirety just a month ago for the first time.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Edit: Whoops, my mistake. Memory isn't that great. Thanks for contributing to my postcount though!

Sure


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Frogboy wrote:

I will not like it nor serve it and believe that anyone who votes for the lesser of two evils is as ignorant as the casual racist of 50-100 years ago. You just follow the herd like a good little sheep even though you know it's wrong.

You realize that it's the Democrats and Republicans that tell you that you have to vote for them? You serve your masters well.

This looks suspiciously like "you are not a libertarian, therefore you are wrong."

Kryzbyn wrote:
Somewhere between "Free markets deserve to be free of oversight!" rhetoric and the "Goverment should own everythign and divy it all up!" rhetoric, is a good solution waiting to be found. So far, neither the tea PArty nor the OWS people have found it, or even come close.
Frogboy wrote:

Yeah, there's an answer all right. People aren't intelligent enough to see it obviously.

.

Let's all keep electing the 1%, though. I'm sure things will getting better any day now.

Agreeing on the problem is one thing, and not that difficult, as this thread shows. Agreeing on the solution is VERY difficult, intelligence notwithstanding.

I'm cool with the libertarian platform all the way through its social values. Where it loses me is the entire breadth of its economic stance. The platform is completely invested in the myth of the free, unregulated market. To paraphrase FDR, the free market is a poker game--sooner or later someone has all the chips. Sooner or later, people won't stand for it. The market MUST be regulated, and that regulation can best be done by the government. To be blunt, if the government doesn't do it, then armed revolutionaries inevitably will. Regulation is therefore nothing less than casualty prevention.

Deregulation is at least one of the major causes of today's economic crisis, if not THE cause. Regulation is at least one solution, if not THE solution. What manner of regulation is debatable. Continuing to not have regulation is not an option. In other words, the libertarian economic view is not an option.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I just want to take the opportunity to say:
Thanks for the intelligent discourse. I've come to respect everyone here, even the commo hippy goblins :)
Even if I don't agree, most of your responses are thought provoking.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Hudax

In many ways I consider myself Libertarian, but I agree with you that a completely unregulated economy is just asking for trouble.

"The Economy will regulate itself" is a great point of view so long as you recognize that as you mentioned, you recognize that sooner or later, someone is going to take their unfair business practices too far, and someone is going to stab them for it (or shoot them for you americans who are allowed to own handguns).

If you want to keep the peace, you need some regulations. And you need to come up with the right regulations. If you're okay with the market sorting itself out through violence, and you intend to let that happen, then fine. Dont regulate the market. But dont be surprised when unscrupulous business owners start getting killed.


Evil Lincoln wrote:


Plus side: change is inevitable. Down side: it ends in defanged legislation or the guillotine.

Vive le Galt!


John Galt?

EDIT: :P


Kryzbyn wrote:

I just want to take the opportunity to say:

Thanks for the intelligent discourse. I've come to respect everyone here, even the commo hippy goblins :)
Even if I don't agree, most of your responses are thought provoking.

I am not a hippie!

EDIT: Y'know, that's the first time someone's made the John Galt comment. I'm kind of surprised it's taken so long.


Happy to be of service, tovarisch.


I ridiculed Ayn Rand many pages back, but not Galt, specifically.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hudax wrote:
Frogboy wrote:

I will not like it nor serve it and believe that anyone who votes for the lesser of two evils is as ignorant as the casual racist of 50-100 years ago. You just follow the herd like a good little sheep even though you know it's wrong.

You realize that it's the Democrats and Republicans that tell you that you have to vote for them? You serve your masters well.

This looks suspiciously like "you are not a libertarian, therefore you are wrong."

Nope, I support the Greens just as much as the Libertarians. I respect the Constitution party on their moral ground (something the two major parties completely lack) but couldn't personally vote for them based on their tenets. I do believe that they would hold true to their beliefs in office and would never criticize anyone for voting for them.

I'm not saying that my beliefs are right therefor yours are wrong. I'm saying that the Democrats and Republicans are selfish, greedy, arrogant, power-hungry, elitist [insert expletive here]. Why would you vote for that when you could vote for someone who actually wants to make America a better place for everyone (not just themselves)? The Democrats and Republicans are the 1%. They sold us up the river along time ago and the crap that's going on now is the result of decades of greed and corruption. The Green party accepts absolutely no corporate donations. The Libertarians and Constitutions favor scaling back the authoritarian government much much more and giving the power back to the people.

It's downright shameful that we are sitting in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and our president is likely going to spend a billion dollars to buy your vote ... and you're going to give it to him (or to the other guy that ends up spending a half a billion). What the eff is the matter with everyone today?

I understand that you probably think I'm a lunatic or something but I assure you that I'm terribly normal person. A hundred years ago, people that wouldn't have been racist were because it was the social norm and was kind of expected of them. You were viewed less favorably (to say the least) if you didn't partake in the unsavory practice of demeaning someone else's race. Many people didn't like this but did it anyway because they were pressured into it. I see the same thing happening with our political system today as I'm constantly pressured into voting for the lesser of two evils. I just can't do it. Sooner or later, hopefully, this will be the norm as well.

Hudax wrote:

Agreeing on the problem is one thing, and not that difficult, as this thread shows. Agreeing on the solution is VERY difficult, intelligence notwithstanding.

I'm cool with the libertarian platform all the way through its social values. Where it loses me is the entire breadth of its economic stance. The platform is completely invested in the myth of the free, unregulated market. To paraphrase FDR, the free market is a poker game--sooner or later someone has all the chips. Sooner or later, people won't stand for it. The market MUST be regulated, and that regulation can best be done by the government. To be blunt, if the government doesn't do it, then armed revolutionaries inevitably will. Regulation is therefore nothing less than casualty prevention.

Deregulation is at least one of the major causes of today's...

You don't understand the Libertarian platform or more likely, you've been mislead or misinformed by you know who. Libertarians will regulate people and business but will do as little of it as they feel is necessary. You won't see one super conglomerate taking over all business in entire country (and polluting without care) just like you won't have to worry about your angry neighbor taking a dump on your porch every day. They're not anarchists. They basically just want to get the government out of the business of regulating morality which is costing this country trillions of dollars every year. These are the principles that our country was founded on and would still be on if we hadn't let our government get so corrupt.

Cheliax

You know Frogboy, if your country ditches the Republicans and Democrats, and moves to slightly north of center, and maybe makes healthcare either free or easily attainable, I would be strongly consider moving there.

I hope you guys do go that way. I know I'm sick of corp. america pushing everyone around with their money. I'm sick of my country being pushed around by american corporations! I imagine the people in your country feel similarly.

I hope things improve. All of the "Occupy" movements show people are pissed about the current state of the world. And they have lots of reason to be.


DΗ wrote:
You know Frogboy, if your country ditches the Republicans and Democrats, and moves to slightly north of center, and maybe makes healthcare either free or easily attainable, I would be strongly consider moving there.

America is a great country but it could be so much better. I wish more people realized this. We might not stay so complacent.

DΗ wrote:
I hope you guys do go that way. I know I'm sick of corp. america pushing everyone around with their money. I'm sick of my country being pushed around by american corporations! I imagine the people in your country feel similarly.

This is one of the primary functions of government, to keep corporations under control. Corporations only goal is to make money and it's usually bad for business to care about who you're hurting in the process. Our government is doing a very poor job to say the least.

DΗ wrote:
I hope things improve. All of the "Occupy" movements show people are pissed about the current state of the world. And they have lots of reason to be.

I'm hopeful but not very confident. I'm guessing that Obama will go down there, make a bunch of false promises to the OWS protesters and cash in 95% of their votes. The third parties are so shut out of our political system that it'll take someone with some serious star-power to bring any kind of attention to them.

We Americans have evolved into the girl who thinks, "My man is perfect ... except for the perpetual drinking and beating the $#!t out of me every once in a while. But I can change him!" Quite frankly, I'd just like to clean house in Washington and put in people that aren't going to do just the bare minimum to keep us happy. I doubt many people agree with me though.


So here's my platform, and I may have enumerated these necessities pages ago, this is a long-ass thread and it's hard to keep track.

1)Infrastructure-Roads, bridges, railroads, telephone poles, etc.
2)Defense-not pointless wars of aggression for oil or even against terrorism
3)Universal Healthcare-Like, basic free health care. For everyone.
4)Education-a good, free, and hopefully revisionist history and/or intelligent design free education for everyone in the US.
5)Environmental Protection-because protecting the public commons is important, no one wants to breath smog and drink sludge, and the free market CANNOT and WILL NOT curtail their externalities without regulation.

Once these 5 basic things are paid for in full and well regulated, let the laissez faire capitalists have their way with everything else. I'm all for the concept of the free market, but if they're going to insist that we pay the price for the economic cycle's lows and not reap the benefits of its highs, the least they can do is these.


I am following what's going on in Greece, but I have a hard enough time following the lies of the ruling elite of my country of residence; it's difficult to follow the lies of other nations' elites.

On a sidenote, there was a pretty amusing bit about this on the Colbert Report last night.

Anyway, from what I've read, the Greek welfare-state is nowhere near as comprehensive as some commentators have maintained. I think I also read that Greece has one of the highest poverty rates in Europe. I have also read that far from profligate social spending, the cause of the Greek crisis was a tax-structure implemented by the military dictatorship that basically allowed the top 20% to pay little to no taxes.

It's a point that I've made in different threads: whether or not European social-democracy is sustainable, I don't know, but what is clear, at least to me, is that the destruction of the Soviet bloc has freed up tons of moolah for the European bourgeoisie. All that cash they used to spend to keep their proletariats too happy and fat to listen to the KKE or Rifondazione Comunista? Well, they're not willing to spend it anymore.

And just like anywhere else, the Greek budget crisis is going to be settled on the backs of the poor and the working population.

I was also led to believe that the recent dumping of trillions of bucks worth of derivatives by BoA and the House of Morgan into FDIC-insured American banks was yet another ploy by the banks to insure their holdings at the expense of the American tax-payers.

But, like I said, it's hard enough keeping track of the lies that my "own" ruling class tells; I don't pretend to be an expert on the ins and outs of Europe.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
But, like I said, it's hard enough keeping track of the lies that my "own" ruling class tells...

Preach it, bruthah! lol

Fast and furious, as of late, particularly around Oakland.

Shadow Lodge

Quote:
I will not like it nor serve it and believe that anyone who votes for the lesser of two evils is as ignorant as the casual racist of 50-100 years ago. You just follow the herd like a good little sheep even though you know it's wrong.

I'd rather do a small amount of good with a small amount of fuss than absolutely no good with a large amount of fuss.

Take a look at history. The most radical, left wing pro minority candidate 100 years ago would be too far right to run on the rightest wing of the party today.

I think the solution is to vote in so many democrats that the democratic middle becomes the green platform, and the greens can move on to getting whales non human citizenship rights. (hey, they're more of a person than corporations)


OTOH, the farthest right economic candidate 50 years ago would be at the left of the Democratic party today.

But don't just vote in Democrats, primary the ones you don't like. Especially at the local level, where you can actually have an impact.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Take a look at history. The most radical, left wing pro minority candidate 100 years ago would be too far right to run on the rightest wing of the party today.

I don't mean to be pedantic, but, not entirely true: Eugene V. Debs

{Unless you mean only candidates for the two major parties. In which case, I preemptively apologize.)


Hey jeff!

Spoiler:
I haven't seen you around in a while; I hope all is well.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Hey jeff!

** spoiler omitted **

Yeah, just keeping my head down and trying to stay out of things too likely to turn into flame wars.

Andoran

Yeah, so the "Occupy Houston" thing is lame. Went by yesterday to check it out from a safe distance (it's two blocks from the Fed Court, don't need my PO seeing me there), and there's nothing really to it. I was kind of disappointed.

Should have released to Austin, theirs seem more fun...


houstonderek wrote:

Yeah, so the "Occupy Houston" thing is lame. Went by yesterday to check it out from a safe distance (it's two blocks from the Fed Court, don't need my PO seeing me there), and there's nothing really to it. I was kind of disappointed.

Should have released to Austin, theirs seem more fun...

The one here in Omaha was only 50 ppl.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

The one in NOLA had all the tents and banners set up, but no people in sight. Dunno, was the middle of the day and maybe they were all still asleep. Didn't see any kind of presence in the quarter or frenchman street prior to halloween.

Haven't been by the Los Angeles protest since I came back from my trip, maybe i'll do a drive-by soon. :)

Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
on the other the preferred solutions involve more special interests (protectionism, regulation, trade unions, state interference)

As opposed to the special interest where china is allowed to manufacture without environmental regulations but western countries have to not turn their people into mutant freaks.

Government interference is a given. It has to happen, we've seen the alternative. Once that interference is in place it needs to be accounted for somehow. You can't just tell American manufacturers to suck it up and work harder with one hand tied behind their back.

Sure, but on whose behalf? A narrow interest group or the broader interests of the population? It seems you just want the narrow interest groups you favour. Greece's economy is f#%&ed but they don't have a big banking sector, but they nevertheless have lots of interest groups. It's clientelism on a grand scale, with closed shops for everything up to and including taxis. Crappy economic growth disguised by borrowing, which has come back to roost. You don't need corporations to get corruption.

And American manufacturing has declined because its cost base is too high, and most of what the people did has been replaced by technology. You still don't get it - China is a sideshow in the decline of American (or British) maufacturing, it has been going on for decades. Germany has done fine, by keeping up with technological innovation which is much harder in systems with predatory unions. Who f+*@ed GM? China? Hardly, it was Americans who didn't want to buy those cars, because the massive overheads meant you got crap cars at great expense. Look to organised labour if you want to know what happened to US manufacturing. What makes you different from a banker feathering his nest at the expense of everyone else? I wouldn't really mind so much if it wasn't wrapped in a moralising tone and cod economics.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

And American manufacturing has declined because its cost base is too high, and most of what the people did has been replaced by technology. You still don't get it - China is a sideshow in the decline of American (or British) maufacturing, it has been going on for decades. Germany has done fine, by keeping up with technological innovation which is much harder in systems with predatory unions. Who f@&%ed GM? China? Hardly, it was Americans who didn't want to buy those cars, because the massive overheads meant you got crap cars at great expense. Look to organised labour if you want to know what happened to US manufacturing. What makes you different from a banker feathering his nest at the expense of everyone else? I wouldn't really mind so much if it wasn't wrapped in a moralising tone and cod economics.

I'm not sure what you mean by "predatory" unions, but Germany has a much stronger union presence than the US does. Blaming the US's manufacturing decline on unions seems a little off when it has accelerated with labor's loss of membership and power.

What is the difference in Germany that has allowed them to do fine despite much higher union membership rates and legal protections?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

And American manufacturing has declined because its cost base is too high, and most of what the people did has been replaced by technology. You still don't get it - China is a sideshow in the decline of American (or British) maufacturing, it has been going on for decades. Germany has done fine, by keeping up with technological innovation which is much harder in systems with predatory unions. Who f@&%ed GM? China? Hardly, it was Americans who didn't want to buy those cars, because the massive overheads meant you got crap cars at great expense. Look to organised labour if you want to know what happened to US manufacturing. What makes you different from a banker feathering his nest at the expense of everyone else? I wouldn't really mind so much if it wasn't wrapped in a moralising tone and cod economics.

I'm not sure what you mean by "predatory" unions, but Germany has a much stronger union presence than the US does. Blaming the US's manufacturing decline on unions seems a little off when it has accelerated with labor's loss of membership and power.

What is the difference in Germany that has allowed them to do fine despite much higher union membership rates and legal protections?

German unions are actual partners with the companies in Germany. They don't grab everything they can to the detriment of the health of the employer like American unions do. Oh, and German unions don't raid their member's pension funds for political/criminal purposes, either.

If American unions acted like German unions, we'd be much better off.


thejeff wrote:

trying to stay out of things too likely to turn into flame wars.

Bring 'em on! say I.


I don't know. UPS management has gone on the record that they are thrilled with the Teamsters and that relations are better than ever. I haven't been following too closely, but I believe the UAW just accepted contracts that produced thousands of jobs--with the new hires getting none of the old benefits of a UAW contract. In the Democratic-run states, public-sector unions are giving up tons of shiznit, as long as the boss is polite and asks.

I'm not in favor of any of this, of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

More D&D-themed Occupy New Hampshire:

So, I just got back from a meeting planning a Jobs, Not Cuts! demo held by a group called Socialist Alternative. I met one of their guys from Boston and in between discussing the capitalist nature of the Democratic Party and the upcoming Senate committee to make budget cuts, we found time to discuss the Vancian nature of the D&D spellcasting system and the infamous rape scene in The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever.

Occupy Paizo!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems that one of the main international goals of OWS should be to get the US out of NAFTA, WTO and other international "free trade" pacts. They weren't popular to begin with because people knew what problems they would cause. Those problems are here, and it's time to say goodbye to a bad idea. We also need to take a good hard look at tariffs and things that bypass them such as Most Favored Nation trading status. We need to institute Fair Trade policies based on all of those things that politicians love to talk about (democracy, freedom, blah blah blah...) but seem to hate in reality.

I think the other major international issue directly related to the working class is immigration. Our current system of "slave underclass" is only working for the wealthy. I know it probably isn't very popular with most Lefty types, but we need well guarded boarders and ports, and the immigrants that are here illegally need to be made legal or shipped back- no more illegal working class.
EDIT:
There aught to be a law against free trade with China... There is!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson-Vanik_amendment
"Congress specifically removed China from coverage by Jackson-Vanik in the late 1990s as part of its entry into the World Trade Organization, as the provisions of Jackson-Vanik were inconsistent with WTO rules."

Who knew that being a radical means wanting things to go back to the way the were in our parents and grandparents day?


Good Alexander Cockburn article: The Iron Heel and the Resistance

Well, I like it, anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I'd rather do a small amount of good with a small amount of fuss than absolutely no good with a large amount of fuss.

Take a look at history. The most radical, left wing pro minority candidate 100 years ago would be too far right to run on the rightest wing of the party today.

I think the solution is to vote in so many democrats that the democratic middle becomes the green platform, and the greens can move on to getting whales non human citizenship rights. (hey, they're more of a person than corporations)

I don't believe that voting in a monopoly is the answer and would only make things way worse. There's a difference between the Democrats and the Greens. The Democrats, the ones that have made it into higher office at least, are a bunch of power-hungry millionaires who pretend to be for the people. The Greens are normal people who actually are for the people.

You are doing absolutely no good voting for Democrats. They're a bunch of fakers. People like you are the problem. I'm not saying this to be mean or insulting, I'm saying it because it's true.

Instead of just throwing up our hands and acting like there isn't anything we can do about it, why don't we start doing something about it? If enough people are willing to stand up and criticize both the Democratic and Republican elite, and endorse people who would lead for the benefit of the citizens who elected them, America would be much better off. We might not win right away but we've got to start somewhere.


Frogboy wrote:


I don't believe that voting in a monopoly is the answer and would only make things way worse. There's a difference between the Democrats and the Greens. The Democrats, the ones that have made it into higher office at least, are a bunch of power-hungry millionaires who pretend to be for the people. The Greens are normal people who actually are for the people.

"the ones that have made it into higher office at least"

That's where it falls apart. Power corrupts. (Or, at least, power attracts the corrupt) Greens aren't corrupt, but they don't have any power.

The most your approach will do is replace one of the parties in power with another one, which will take years and will quickly become "a bunch of power-hungry millionaires", because you have to want the power to go to that much effort to get it and you both need the money to get elected and it becomes easy to get the money once you're elected.


Kryzbyn wrote:
John Galt?
Benicio Del Espada wrote:
I ridiculed Ayn Rand many pages back, but not Galt, specifically.

Must resist... urge to... rant...

Whew. That was a close one.

(Ayn Rand is evil.)

Dammit!!


Frogboy wrote:

We Americans have evolved into the girl who thinks, "My man is perfect ... except for the perpetual drinking and beating the $#!t out of me every once in a while. But I can change him!" Quite frankly, I'd just like to clean house in Washington and put in people that aren't going to do just the bare minimum to keep us happy. I doubt many people agree with me though.

I agree with you. I just don't have any faith that an alternative party can win a major election. History has shown us too many times that a vote for them (whoever they are) is a vote for who you least want to win.

And as far as the LP platform goes, if they are in favor of minimum necessary regulation, then I dislike their economics a little bit less.

I think if the libertarian social views, the socialist economic views, and the green environmental views got together and had a three-way love child, that would be just about perfect in my mind.


thejeff wrote:

"the ones that have made it into higher office at least"

That's where it falls apart. Power corrupts. (Or, at least, power attracts the corrupt) Greens aren't corrupt, but they don't have any power.

The most your approach will do is replace one of the parties in power with another one, which will take years and will quickly become "a bunch of power-hungry millionaires", ...

We won't really know until we try. A different philosophical viewpoint may work in our favor as well. Greens don't believe in and won't accept corporate donations as they see this as a conflict of interests. This could go a long way in helping the party in stay true to their ideals.

The Libertarians believe in limited government. The less authority the government has over us, the less power they have to become corrupt.

The Constitution are a very religious, Christian political party unlike those fake-a$$ Republicans that just pretend like they are.

These ideals are pure and could take many decades to corrupt. I doubt that it'd happen overnight.

thejeff wrote:
... because you have to want the power to go to that much effort to get it and you both need the money to get elected and it becomes easy to get the money once you're elected.

We, the people, are also the ones who have been corrupted by money. Winning an election doesn't need to, and shouldn't, require millions or billions of dollars. A webpage with all of the candidates and their platform, combined with a few televised debates and some media coverage throughout election season is all I need to decide who I want to vote for. We seriously should have a publicly financed, 5 million dollar finance cap for each presidential candidate to avoid the very thing that's happened in 2008 and will certainly happen in 2012.

If we could get the right group in there, they will level the playing field in order to avoid the kinds of blatant corruption that we witness today. The entire reason America is so great is because our founding fathers, even though rich, were not corrupt. Their goal was to form a nation void from the typical elitist rule that most eastern hemisphere countries had fallen into. That, coupled with the isolation of the western hemisphere, allowed us to grow into what many of us call the "greatest nation in the world". It took a long time for America to reach the dangerous levels of corruption that we see today.

Hudax wrote:
I agree with you. I just don't have any faith that an alternative party can win a major election.

Not until we start changing public opinion. I'm doing my best and making my case. One of the biggest problems is that the presidential elections are rigged in their favor. They are so freaking arrogant that they aren't even trying to hide it. This fact alone makes me refuse to vote for either of the two major parties. I really do not like cheaters.

Hudax wrote:
History has shown us too many times that a vote for them (whoever they are) is a vote for who you least want to win.

I'm not quite following what you're saying here.

Hudax wrote:
I think if the libertarian social views, the socialist economic views, and the green environmental views got together and had a three-way love child, that would be just about perfect in my mind.

I agree. This sounds nice.

1,151 to 1,200 of 2,124 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Occupy Wall Street! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.