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

Obama deserves a second term


Off-Topic Discussions

501 to 550 of 810 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

Kryzbyn wrote:
LazarX wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

I regret Obama now. I would regret a second term from him. I'll regret Romney.

The only reason to regret voting for Obama is that if you feel that a different vote had a legitimate chance of getting a better President. Cain/Palin was not that choice. And despite any other presences on the ballot, there were no other choices.

No, that's not the only reason.

Another would be supposing Obama was the lesser of two evils, realizing he's not, and now you've just made it very possible for him to have 2 terms of not doing what you thought he'd do instead of one.

Just conjecture on my part, though. I dunno what's goin on in HD's head.

That doesn't make sense. Or at least doesn't contradict Lazar's claim.

If you thought Obama was the lesser of two evils and realized you were wrong, that means the other evil was actually better. In other words: McCain would have been a better president.

Qadira

Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:
wicked cool wrote:

Is what is currently going on in Libya/middle east the event that breaks the camels back and changes the election. Was it really the film that caused this mess or i s the film in fact a lie and that this was preplanned for 9/11 and was about drone attacks/the release of certain hostage . Several media sources and white house sources are saying it was preplanned and the movie was just ans excuse. Obama says on Letterman its becuase of this shady character and his movie that caused it.

I believe hes stretching the truth and once the story unfolds it will be the same as what jimmy Carter went through with the hostages.

I kind of hope he wins, so I can hear all the excuses his supporters will make after the economy crashes again. Kind of hard to keep blaming Bush in your 2nd term as President. Obama might have to learn a new phrase... "personal responsibility".

Nah, here in MI we had a 2 term gov. blame the previous one the whole time. No matter how bad she screwed us, it was all his fault....

Taldor

Well to be fair Bush's people were blaming Clinton well into year 7 or 8 of their run.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Well to be fair Bush's people were blaming Clinton well into year 7 or 8 of their run.

Are you kidding? They're still blaming Clinton. Everything was Clinton's fault until Obama took office. Every after that was his. It's like the Bush admin didn't even happen.


thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
LazarX wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

I regret Obama now. I would regret a second term from him. I'll regret Romney.

The only reason to regret voting for Obama is that if you feel that a different vote had a legitimate chance of getting a better President. Cain/Palin was not that choice. And despite any other presences on the ballot, there were no other choices.

No, that's not the only reason.

Another would be supposing Obama was the lesser of two evils, realizing he's not, and now you've just made it very possible for him to have 2 terms of not doing what you thought he'd do instead of one.

Just conjecture on my part, though. I dunno what's goin on in HD's head.

That doesn't make sense. Or at least doesn't contradict Lazar's claim.

If you thought Obama was the lesser of two evils and realized you were wrong, that means the other evil was actually better. In other words: McCain would have been a better president.

Or that they were equivalent evils. Not worse than.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:

I don't get the whole Obama vs. Romney thing.

Romney is just "Obama version 2".

Look at everything that Obama has done over the past four years. Has Romney given any indication that he'd go in a different direction? We all know about Romneycare. Obama fought against gay rights in every way that he could over the past four years. Romney supports the Lilly Ledbetter act. Romney supports abortion. Romney is silent on the fact that the Obama administration is trying to be able to send Americans to prison without trial.

The two leading candidates are just smoke and mirrors to keep the average American distracted.

Can we please stop pretending that the two candidates are the same? Or that the two major parties are the same? There are huge, clear differences between the two. If you disagree, you're not paying attention.

Very few things are harming the level of political discourse and civic engagement in the United States more than people who continue to push the idea that politicians from both sides are the same.


Kryzbyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
LazarX wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

I regret Obama now. I would regret a second term from him. I'll regret Romney.

The only reason to regret voting for Obama is that if you feel that a different vote had a legitimate chance of getting a better President. Cain/Palin was not that choice. And despite any other presences on the ballot, there were no other choices.

No, that's not the only reason.

Another would be supposing Obama was the lesser of two evils, realizing he's not, and now you've just made it very possible for him to have 2 terms of not doing what you thought he'd do instead of one.

Just conjecture on my part, though. I dunno what's goin on in HD's head.

That doesn't make sense. Or at least doesn't contradict Lazar's claim.

If you thought Obama was the lesser of two evils and realized you were wrong, that means the other evil was actually better. In other words: McCain would have been a better president.
Or that they were equivalent evils. Not worse than.

Fair enough. Though if they're equivalent, it doesn't seem like a big deal which one's in charge.


Scott Betts wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

I don't get the whole Obama vs. Romney thing.

Romney is just "Obama version 2".

Look at everything that Obama has done over the past four years. Has Romney given any indication that he'd go in a different direction? We all know about Romneycare. Obama fought against gay rights in every way that he could over the past four years. Romney supports the Lilly Ledbetter act. Romney supports abortion. Romney is silent on the fact that the Obama administration is trying to be able to send Americans to prison without trial.

The two leading candidates are just smoke and mirrors to keep the average American distracted.

Can we please stop pretending that the two candidates are the same? Or that the two major parties are the same? There are huge, clear differences between the two. If you disagree, you're not paying attention.

Very few things are harming the level of political discourse and civic engagement in the United States more than people who continue to push the idea that politicians from both sides are the same.

False equivalency. It's the latest craze. Comes back every time a Democrat is in charge.

Part of it's pure spin. Part of it's actual disappointment. The perfect is the enemy of the good.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The Democrats and the Republicans are the Twin Parties of Racist American Imperialism.

I say it even when Republicans are in office. And I do pay attention.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll take the last 4 years over the 8 before that.

Shadow Lodge

Scott Betts wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

I don't get the whole Obama vs. Romney thing.

Romney is just "Obama version 2".

Look at everything that Obama has done over the past four years. Has Romney given any indication that he'd go in a different direction? We all know about Romneycare. Obama fought against gay rights in every way that he could over the past four years. Romney supports the Lilly Ledbetter act. Romney supports abortion. Romney is silent on the fact that the Obama administration is trying to be able to send Americans to prison without trial.

The two leading candidates are just smoke and mirrors to keep the average American distracted.

Can we please stop pretending that the two candidates are the same? Or that the two major parties are the same? There are huge, clear differences between the two. If you disagree, you're not paying attention.

Very few things are harming the level of political discourse and civic engagement in the United States more than people who continue to push the idea that politicians from both sides are the same.

You're not paying attention is just an ad hom. Try outlining the differences.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

I don't get the whole Obama vs. Romney thing.

Romney is just "Obama version 2".

Look at everything that Obama has done over the past four years. Has Romney given any indication that he'd go in a different direction? We all know about Romneycare. Obama fought against gay rights in every way that he could over the past four years. Romney supports the Lilly Ledbetter act. Romney supports abortion. Romney is silent on the fact that the Obama administration is trying to be able to send Americans to prison without trial.

The two leading candidates are just smoke and mirrors to keep the average American distracted.

Can we please stop pretending that the two candidates are the same? Or that the two major parties are the same? There are huge, clear differences between the two. If you disagree, you're not paying attention.

Very few things are harming the level of political discourse and civic engagement in the United States more than people who continue to push the idea that politicians from both sides are the same.

You're not paying attention is just an ad hom. Try outlining the differences.

I would have, if it hadn't been done multiple times already in this very thread. Heck, within the last page, no less. Clearly, the sort of person trying so hard to spread the idea I'm railing against doesn't actually care that real differences exist. They only care about perpetuating the myth, and what's worse is I often see and hear it used as a truly pathetic justification for voter apathy.

"You're not paying attention," isn't an ad hominem. I'm saying, straight up, that not paying attention is a real problem. Election season armchair politicos with a fashionable interest in the race for the White House posing as truly knowledgeable is resulting in the continued propagation of myths and lies, like the idea that the two major candidates are politically interchangeable.


thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
LazarX wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

I regret Obama now. I would regret a second term from him. I'll regret Romney.

The only reason to regret voting for Obama is that if you feel that a different vote had a legitimate chance of getting a better President. Cain/Palin was not that choice. And despite any other presences on the ballot, there were no other choices.

No, that's not the only reason.

Another would be supposing Obama was the lesser of two evils, realizing he's not, and now you've just made it very possible for him to have 2 terms of not doing what you thought he'd do instead of one.

Just conjecture on my part, though. I dunno what's goin on in HD's head.

That doesn't make sense. Or at least doesn't contradict Lazar's claim.

If you thought Obama was the lesser of two evils and realized you were wrong, that means the other evil was actually better. In other words: McCain would have been a better president.
Or that they were equivalent evils. Not worse than.
Fair enough. Though if they're equivalent, it doesn't seem like a big deal which one's in charge.

<shrug> I dunno, man. We'll have to wait and see what HD meant.


A Man In Black wrote:


Darkwing Duck wrote:

He took no initiative that wasn't politically expedient.

Call that whatever you want to, just don't call it praise-worthy or supportive of the LGBT community.

These are some pretty rapidly moving goalposts. First, Obama fights gay rights at every turn. Wait, no, now he only supports them when it's expedient. What's your argument going to be when I punch a hole in that?

In my last post I started with the assumption that Obama was just an opportunistic coward rather than malignant.

If you prefer to think that he's an opportunistic coward rather than malignant, I must admit that I can't prove you wrong.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

You forgot to reply to the half of that post you didn't quote, DWD.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
LazarX wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

I regret Obama now. I would regret a second term from him. I'll regret Romney.

The only reason to regret voting for Obama is that if you feel that a different vote had a legitimate chance of getting a better President. Cain/Palin was not that choice. And despite any other presences on the ballot, there were no other choices.

No, that's not the only reason.

Another would be supposing Obama was the lesser of two evils, realizing he's not, and now you've just made it very possible for him to have 2 terms of not doing what you thought he'd do instead of one.

Just conjecture on my part, though. I dunno what's goin on in HD's head.

That doesn't make sense. Or at least doesn't contradict Lazar's claim.

If you thought Obama was the lesser of two evils and realized you were wrong, that means the other evil was actually better. In other words: McCain would have been a better president.
Or that they were equivalent evils. Not worse than.

To quote legions of British... That's absolute rubbish. For Obama's flaws, and they are considerable, I have at least an idea of what he stands for. With Romney his own personal goal posts change with the wind, and after his brown-face stunt on Univision, I"m not even sure what color or species he is!


As a non-american(I'm brazillian) I support Obama.
From the outside looking in, he seems smart, well spoken, reasonably competent and not very corrupt.
Romney, on the other hand, seems a heartbeat away from going full Charlie Sheen loco in the coco. He looks like he's itching to play russian roulette with nukes while ranting about tiger blood.
If you guys hadn't already elected George W 'can he even tie his own shoes?' Bush, not once but twice, we, as in, the rest of the world, would think you guys were just joking...

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
VM mercenario wrote:
If you guys hadn't already elected George W 'can he even tie his own shoes?' Bush, not once but twice, we, as in, the rest of the world, would think you guys were just joking...

I've never much liked Mitt Romney, but I could not have predicted that his campaign would self-destruct to the degree it has in the last month or so.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
VM mercenario wrote:

As a non-american(I'm brazillian) I support Obama.

From the outside looking in, he seems smart, well spoken, reasonably competent and not very corrupt.
Romney, on the other hand, seems a heartbeat away from going full Charlie Sheen loco in the coco. He looks like he's itching to play russian roulette with nukes while ranting about tiger blood.
If you guys hadn't already elected George W 'can he even tie his own shoes?' Bush, not once but twice, we, as in, the rest of the world, would think you guys were just joking...

Obama is just a better speaker.

The fact is that his administration is fighting to have the right to send people to jail without trial. He has, also, pursued legal action against whistleblowers more often than any previous President.

There are plenty of reasons to be afraid of Obama - things that have nothing to do with where he was born or what race he is.


LazarX wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
LazarX wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

I regret Obama now. I would regret a second term from him. I'll regret Romney.

The only reason to regret voting for Obama is that if you feel that a different vote had a legitimate chance of getting a better President. Cain/Palin was not that choice. And despite any other presences on the ballot, there were no other choices.

No, that's not the only reason.

Another would be supposing Obama was the lesser of two evils, realizing he's not, and now you've just made it very possible for him to have 2 terms of not doing what you thought he'd do instead of one.

Just conjecture on my part, though. I dunno what's goin on in HD's head.

That doesn't make sense. Or at least doesn't contradict Lazar's claim.

If you thought Obama was the lesser of two evils and realized you were wrong, that means the other evil was actually better. In other words: McCain would have been a better president.
Or that they were equivalent evils. Not worse than.
To quote legions of British... That's absolute rubbish. For Obama's flaws, and they are considerable, I have at least an idea of what he stands for. With Romney his own personal goal posts change with the wind, and after his brown-face stunt on Univision, I"m not even sure what color or species he is!

You know that people don't do their own make up before going on TV, right?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Darkwing Duck wrote:
The fact is that his administration is fighting to have the right to send people to jail without trial.

Except that they're not, since that was removed from the NDAA this year, something I've already pointed out in this thread.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also that people forget their high school civics.

The NDAA is only good for two years. Period. It has to be completely redone when it expires.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Man In Black wrote:
You forgot to reply to the half of that post you didn't quote, DWD.

He definitely didn't forget.

DD has a certain style, and part of that style is "don't reply to points you can't win, and hope no one notices"


Scott Betts wrote:
"You're not paying attention," isn't an ad hominem. I'm saying, straight up, that not paying attention is a real problem. Election season armchair politicos with a fashionable interest in the race for the White House posing as truly knowledgeable is resulting in the continued propagation of myths and lies, like the idea that the two major candidates are politically...

It goes both ways, though.

Back in 2008, I was living with this sexy roller derby player who caught Obama fever. She went around everywhere talking about nothing but "vote, vote, vote."

When I explained (for the millionth time) that I am a revolutionary socialist and don't support any candidate who supports capitalism, she'd give me a ton of shiznit. She was rather obnoxious about it, but she was cute as a button, so whatevs.

A year later, after the union-busting auto bailouts, failure to close Guantanamo and his other early betrayals of his voting base and campaign promises, I asked her what she thought. She admitted she hadn't been paying attention.

Two years after that, she had moved to San Francisco to pursue her dreams of roller derby and trash-picking. I talked to her on the phone the day after the shooting of that ex-Marine (?) in Oscar Grant Plaza, and she had only the vaguest idea of what had been going on.

Voting for stooges of the plutocracy is for ninnies!

Vive le Galt!


Krensky wrote:

Also that people forget their high school civics.

The NDAA is only good for two years. Period. It has to be completely redone when it expires.

I took every social studies course my high school had to offer. Don't mean to brag, but most of them were at the AP level. Never once was a National Defense Authorization Act mentioned.

Of course, I did go to public school.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Also that people forget their high school civics.

The NDAA is only good for two years. Period. It has to be completely redone when it expires.

I took every social studies course my high school had to offer. Don't mean to brag, but most of them were at the AP level. Never once was a National Defense Authorization Act mentioned.

Of course, I did go to public school.

Me, too! (except for the AP thing) My Social Studies teacher, and one of my favorite teachers ever, was a Marxist and card-carrying Communist.


I had an ex-Marxian ex-member of the Weather Underground.

Ironically, he chaperoned our school trip to Washington, D.C.

That was the same week that Oklahoma City blew up, which he blamed on me and my extremist ways.

Of course, he was also drunk the entire week in D.C., and someone ratted him, out and the school sent down the vice-principal, and poor Mr. Horton was never seen in the halls of Merrimack High School again.

:(


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
"You're not paying attention," isn't an ad hominem. I'm saying, straight up, that not paying attention is a real problem. Election season armchair politicos with a fashionable interest in the race for the White House posing as truly knowledgeable is resulting in the continued propagation of myths and lies, like the idea that the two major candidates are politically...

It goes both ways, though.

Back in 2008, I was living with this sexy roller derby player who caught Obama fever. She went around everywhere talking about nothing but "vote, vote, vote."

When I explained (for the millionth time) that I am a revolutionary socialist and don't support any candidate who supports capitalism, she'd give me a ton of shiznit. She was rather obnoxious about it, but she was cute as a button, so whatevs.

A year later, after the union-busting auto bailouts, failure to close Guantanamo and his other early betrayals of his voting base and campaign promises, I asked her what she thought. She admitted she hadn't been paying attention.

Two years after that, she had moved to San Francisco to pursue her dreams of roller derby and trash-picking. I talked to her on the phone the day after the shooting of that ex-Marine (?) in Oscar Grant Plaza, and she had only the vaguest idea of what had been going on.

Voting for stooges of the plutocracy is for ninnies!

Vive le Galt!

Speaking as a former campus coordinator for the Obama campaign, that sort of individual is in plentiful supply - people who educate themselves very briefly on just enough to know that they probably like this guy more than the other, and occasionally get swept up in trendy politics. And, frankly, the campaigns love those people. They vote, they turn a blind eye to their own candidate's missteps, and they're easy enough to "reactivate" during the following campaign season.

That said, it does work both ways. You've mentioned a handful of failures on Obama's part, and they are failures by one or more metrics (priorities differ; what one sees as a military or security success, another may view as a civil rights failure). But Obama has also accomplished some truly remarkable things - health care reform (long considered a political unicorn by the Democratic party), a slow (and ongoing) climb out of the country's anti-intellectual doldrums, a stop to the downward spiral of economic collapse we found ourselves in at the end of the G.W.B. presidency, actual progress for gay rights, etc. It's doubtful that any of these things would have occurred in a Republican administration. And if you think the last few things I listed are positives, then you should be very excited to see what Obama has in store for when he no longer has to worry about his future electability.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I had an ex-Marxian ex-member of the Weather Underground.

Marxian or Marxist?

At least in my experience, Marxist is sort of another word for socialism (with less baggage) and believing in the political message of Marx. Marxian is more of a sociological point of view that society is defined by struggle (between classes, most importantly).

Or am I confused?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Scott,
I actually expect more of the same in his second term. Granted, Obama himself doesn't need to be elected but the Democratic Party does and if he looks like he's screwing up their chances they'll do their best to stop him. Plus, I don't think it's in his nature not to try and be a concilliator, which means he's always going to keep close to the centre ground and only be 'radical', like supporting gay marriage, once the centre's moved close enough that it's politically viable to do what he wants to.

This isn't to say I don't think he should be reelected (regardless of whether he deserves it or not, no one deserves the fustercluck a Romney presidency would introduce), but I'm always skeptical about political promises.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Man In Black wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
The fact is that his administration is fighting to have the right to send people to jail without trial.
Except that they're not, since that was removed from the NDAA this year, something I've already pointed out in this thread.

I didn't say that he's winning the fight. Fortunately, the courts have stopped him. I said that he's fighting for the right to send people to jail without trial. And he's certainly doing that. Right now, he's requested and received an injunction against the court's ruling.

Fact is, if Obama had fought as hard for the repeal of DADT as he has for the right to throw people in prison without trial, DADT would have been repealed years earlier than it was.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I had an ex-Marxian ex-member of the Weather Underground.

Ironically, he chaperoned our school trip to Washington, D.C.

That was the same week that Oklahoma City blew up, which he blamed on me and my extremist ways.

Of course, he was also drunk the entire week in D.C., and someone ratted him, out and the school sent down the vice-principal, and poor Mr. Horton was never seen in the halls of Merrimack High School again.

:(

Do you have his current info? This is exactly the kind of out-of-the box educator I'd like to employ as a tutor for the Dice children. That's right folks, I'm a job-creator.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
scott betts wrote:
That said, it does work both ways. You've mentioned a handful of failures on Obama's part, and they are failures by one or more metrics (priorities differ; what one sees as a military or security success, another may view as a civil rights failure). But Obama has also accomplished some truly remarkable things - health care reform (long considered a political unicorn by the Democratic party), a slow (and ongoing) climb out of the country's anti-intellectual doldrums, a stop to the downward spiral of economic collapse we found ourselves in at the end of the G.W.B. presidency, actual progress for gay rights, etc. It's doubtful that any of these things would have occurred in a Republican administration. And if you think the last few things I listed are positives, then you should be very excited to see what Obama has in store for when he no longer has to worry about his future electability.

I agree that the Obama administration has accomplished some good things, and is far far better than what the McCain administration would have probably done. However, I am not excited about what he might accomplish if he doesnt have to worry about his future electibility. Will we get the Obama that pushes for gay rights and fights anti-intellectualism OR will we get the Obama that assassinates his own people and expandes our wars on drugs/terror? If its the former, thats great. If its the latter, its pretty sh%##y. Its a huge gamble. Would he be better than Mittens? sure thing. But thats not saying much.


"And if you think the last few things I listed are positives, then you should be very excited to see what Obama has in store for when he no longer has to worry about his future electability"

Its scary that he would hide those things until after the election when he doesnt have to worry anymore.

Whats happened to that movie director that some blame for the middle east mess? Has he been released? If hes still being held with no charges then that scares me.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Wicked Cool,
Which director do you mean? The alleged directors of Innocence of the Muslims, if such a term is correct for the pwerson responsible for such badly made drivel, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is in hiding, not under arrest. But, of course, I don't expect facts to actually matter because "Obama is a scary communist/nazi/atheist/muslim/anticolinialist/kenyan/weak/dictator*".

*delete as appropriate


wicked cool wrote:
Whats happened to that movie director that some blame for the middle east mess? Has he been released? If hes still being held with no charges then that scares me.

Near as I can tell from new stories on line he was questioned concerning probation violations but not detained.

He was on probation for previous check fraud schemes and it looks like what they're concerned about legally is his alleged use of false identities and some internet access that might have been banned under his probation terms.
That's from a 5 minute search, so the legal details may not be correct.

There's no evidence he's being detained without charges or arrested for anything to do with Free Speech.


Scott Betts wrote:

Speaking as a former campus coordinator for the Obama campaign, that sort of individual is in plentiful supply - people who educate themselves very briefly on just enough to know that they probably like this guy more than the other, and occasionally get swept up in trendy politics. And, frankly, the campaigns love those people. They vote, they turn a blind eye to their own candidate's missteps, and they're easy enough to "reactivate" during the following campaign season.

That said, it does work both ways. You've mentioned a handful of...

Hi, Scott, we haven't really met.

I'm sure that if you stick around we'll have many happy opportunities to discuss Obama is up to exciting things vs. Obama is a blood-drenched stooge of the plutocracy.

But I will admit that most non-voters are probably not unreconstructed Marxist-Leninists.


meatrace wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I had an ex-Marxian ex-member of the Weather Underground.

Marxian or Marxist?

At least in my experience, Marxist is sort of another word for socialism (with less baggage) and believing in the political message of Marx. Marxian is more of a sociological point of view that society is defined by struggle (between classes, most importantly).

Or am I confused?

You've got it pretty much right, but you didn't allow for my ultra-sectarian Trotskyist ways. The Weather Underground, despite their rhetoric and sympathies, didn't really have much in common with international proletarian socialist revolution.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

I'm sure glad we're talking about important issues in this year's election, like armed revolution.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
I agree that the Obama administration has accomplished some good things, and is far far better than what the McCain administration would have probably done. However, I am not excited about what he might accomplish if he doesnt have to worry about his future electibility. Will we get the Obama that pushes for gay rights and fights anti-intellectualism OR will we get the Obama that assassinates his own people and expandes our wars on drugs/terror? If its the former, thats great. If its the latter, its pretty sh%##y. Its a huge gamble. Would he be better than Mittens? sure thing. But thats not saying much.

I think that unless the labor movement and some kind of mass movement fight back, Obama will implement the kind of austerity programs the Republicans used to push before they went crazy. See, for example, Chicago and Rahm Emanuel.


A Man In Black wrote:
I'm sure glad we're talking about important issues in this year's election, like armed revolution.

And a very good morning to you, A Stooge in Black.

You ruined my quadruple post, btw.


Lord Dice wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I had an ex-Marxian ex-member of the Weather Underground.

Ironically, he chaperoned our school trip to Washington, D.C.

That was the same week that Oklahoma City blew up, which he blamed on me and my extremist ways.

Of course, he was also drunk the entire week in D.C., and someone ratted him, out and the school sent down the vice-principal, and poor Mr. Horton was never seen in the halls of Merrimack High School again.

:(

Do you have his current info? This is exactly the kind of out-of-the box educator I'd like to employ as a tutor for the Dice children. That's right folks, I'm a job-creator.

He was pretty awesome, actually, before the binge-drinking on the class trip thing. He used to describe his teaching style as "benign enlightened despotism."

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

You're going to see states and municipalities everywhere, regardless of party, pass austerity programs until Congress gets their s*#~ together and makes block grants to states like they normally do during downturns. (This is not to defend Rahm, though, he sucks.)


Or until the unions get their shiznit together and break from the Democrats.

Vive le Galt!


A Man In Black wrote:
I'm sure glad we're talking about important issues in this year's election, like armed revolution.

I'll bite. What are the most important issues, ignoring everything that Anklebiter is bound to respond with?

(no offense to him, but we know where he stands)

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

The unions don't enter into it. States and municipalities don't have the power to deficit spend the way the federal government does. Their budgets work more like business or personal budgets: if there is no money, they can only raise taxes or cut spending.

If unions want to fix it, though, there are a bunch of Congress members up for election in a few months.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
I didn't say that he's winning the fight. Fortunately, the courts have stopped him. I said that he's fighting for the right to send people to jail without trial. And he's certainly doing that. Right now, he's requested and received an injunction against the court's ruling.

Good thing the courts forced him to pass legislation he asked for without deciding any cases or anything! Amazing things, those courts.

Quote:
Fact is, if Obama had fought as hard for the repeal of DADT as he has for the right to throw people in prison without trial, DADT would have been repealed years earlier than it was.

Years before DADT passed, Obama was a freshman Senator. He called for a DADT repeal in the State of the Union in his second year, and started working with Congress immediately to get legislation passed. Laws, especially controversial ones, do take time to pass!

So when's your next amazing backflip to explain how legislation that Obama fought for and passed some how is completely unrelated to Obama, DWD?

Evil Lincoln wrote:
I'll bite. What are the most important issues

To me? The economy, as much as I gab on about social issues. I'm not happy that Obama isn't more progressive, but programs like the JOBS Act beat the Republican plan of making things worse. I'm uncomfortable with Obama's foreign policy but the alternative is Bush 3.0 so that's an easy call, and there is nothing on Earth that cold

Make me like Romney's social policies.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Also that people forget their high school civics.

The NDAA is only good for two years. Period. It has to be completely redone when it expires.

I took every social studies course my high school had to offer. Don't mean to brag, but most of them were at the AP level. Never once was a National Defense Authorization Act mentioned.

Of course, I did go to public school.

Article I, Section 8, clause 12

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

The NDAA is only good for one year though. The 2013 one is in the senate now.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth about NDAA 2012 is pointless. Spend the effort fighting NDAA 2013.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Krensky wrote:

Article I, Section 8, clause 12

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

The NDAA is only good for one year though. The 2013 one is in the senate now.

The wailing and gnashing of teeth about NDAA 2012 is pointless. Spend the effort fighting NDAA 2013.

It isn't actually common knowledge that the NDAA was the military appropriations bill, though, and honestly most people don't know that an appropriations bill is a bill that pays for things.

Also, I thought the 2013 NDAA was already through the Senate? Oh well.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
A Man In Black wrote:

It isn't actually common knowledge that the NDAA was the military appropriations bill, though, and honestly most people don't know that an appropriations bill is a bill that pays for things.

Also, I thought the 2013 NDAA was already through the Senate? Oh well.

Since when has ignorance been an excuse?

Nope, it was reported by committee in the beginning of June.


Paul Watson wrote:

Scott,

I actually expect more of the same in his second term. Granted, Obama himself doesn't need to be elected but the Democratic Party does and if he looks like he's screwing up their chances they'll do their best to stop him.

This isn't as big of a deal as you think it is. It's important for an outgoing president to leave a positive legacy, yes, but it's much easier for a candidate to weather his predecessor's mistakes (even if that predecessor was in his own party) than it is for a candidate to weather his own mistakes in an election.

Quote:
Plus, I don't think it's in his nature not to try and be a concilliator, which means he's always going to keep close to the centre ground and only be 'radical', like supporting gay marriage, once the centre's moved close enough that it's politically viable to do what he wants to.

Obama is a very, very intelligent man. And he views government and politics as a reflection of the country, not the other way around. He has his personal view of morality and how he believes the country should be, but that's not something he's going to shoot for if he doesn't believe the country is ready for it. Political defeats are too costly to an idea to be risked when there's no chance of success.

Quote:
This isn't to say I don't think he should be reelected (regardless of whether he deserves it or not, no one deserves the fustercluck a Romney presidency would introduce), but I'm always skeptical about political promises.

Actually, we haven't seen many political promises from the Obama campaign this cycle. By and large, he's running on his record as President. And it seems to be working splendidly, for now. I'm sure this will change somewhat once we get into the debates and the candidate's are encouraged to compare and contrast their plans for the country against one another. But when I talk about the gloves coming off during Obama's second term, that's because it's what I think will happen, not because of anything Obama has announced he'll do.

501 to 550 of 810 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Obama deserves a second term 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.