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

POLL: Who Won The 'First' Presidential Debate 2012 ?


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 204 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Andoran

Romney won. He's a salesman at heart and Obama made a strategic mistake of not calling BS. Obama will do much better in the Town Hall format, and the moderator will run a tighter ship in the last debate.

Romney can only pay for the tax cuts if he cuts the mortgage and child care credits, or grows the debt even further. Period, full stop. That is the math. PBS is 0.012 percent of the budget, so cutting Big Bird ain't gonna do much.

The "716 Billion Cut" is in the Ryan budget. And "Obamacare" is a net savings according to the CBO. He would actually need to raise revenue to repeal it. And you can't leave in the "good" parts and still have it be financially viable.

The scary "Review Panel" is actually more restricted than anything you would find in any private insurance plan.

Obama didn't call him out on these things because they were trying to be cautions and avoid a gotcha zinger from Romney. It was dumb strategy. But if you actually fact check the debates, Romney can't do what he is promising to do.

The math doesn't work. Obama should have attacked instead of trying to look presidential.

I lost sleep over it, because going back to the Bush-old-days scares the hell out of me, but I feel better about it now.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
Politics is lying.

Only for amateurs. The professionals deceive with the truth. Unless of course, you're NJ Governor Chris Christie who actually got a Liar Liar Pants on Fire on at least one his statements in PoliticalFacts.com.

Most politicians deceive with the parts of the truth that are left unspoken.

Andoran

Freehold DM wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Romney.

If the polls don't go anywhere you can expect to see obama continue to "take 10" so he doesn't get the nat 1 that costs him the swing states.

Hnn. Good point.

Taking 10 was a mistake when Romney tried to do it in his campaign and it is a mistake for Obama.

You have to run to win, not to avoid losing. Didn't work for Gore, didn't work for Bush Sr.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
wicked cool wrote:


For a lot of people it was their first chance to see Romney other than an ad and for many he looked presidential. As for the theory those who have made up thier minds already look at past polls in history at this time and see who won after debates.

If you look at past history, you will see that the debates had more or less no impact. Polls from before the debates fairly accurately predicted the winner, but not the margin of victory. Romney may have won the debate, but it is unlikely that he pulled ahead enough to close Obama's massive leads.

Taldor

Curious strategy from Obama to not go for Romney over his blatant lies last night, but maybe that's for the attack ads. Maybe going so far as to compare Obama getting Bin Laden with Romney wanting to kill Big Bird.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
CapeCodRPGer wrote:
Most people think Romney won. But like the white house has said for over 30 months in a row when the job numbers have come out weaker then expected, " you can't read too much into the numbers."

You know the White House is patting down the numbers. Politicians and their spin.


Scott Betts wrote:
We're already dumb enough for trying to debate politics online.

I really have no counter for that. :)

Moving on: I agree that Romney was full of cr*p...but he still won the debate.


meatrace wrote:
Yeah...I'm sorry but he didn't appeal to authority.

Upon review...you are correct.


bugleyman wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Yeah...I'm sorry but he didn't appeal to authority.

Upon review...you are correct.

I know of a lot of very smart people on the internet who would all agree that you are correct


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bill Hicks, 1961-1994


So, if this debate was so important, who here has been convinced to vote for Romney by it?

I don't think anyone has claimed that yet.


thejeff wrote:

So, if this debate was so important, who here has been convinced to vote for Romney by it?

I don't think anyone has claimed that yet.

I was. But I saw an Obama commercial this morning that changed my mind again.

Shadow Lodge

TOZ wrote:
Hush, he's crowing at the sun.

Thats not a good sign in a bat... someone check for rabies.

Shadow Lodge

Grand Magus wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Yeah...I'm sorry but he didn't appeal to authority. And appeal to authority isn't necessarily a fallacy either.

.

Yes, appeal to authority is on the list of official fallacies.

Under "Red herring fallacies" > List of fallacies <

** spoiler omitted **

.

Its only a fallacy if either

1) The person is not an expert on the subject (My sister's aunt's cousin says the moon is made out of green cheese! And she's smart. Therefore the moon is made out of green cheese)

2) There's no consensus among the experts about whether you're right or not and you're only citing the experts that support your position. (ie string theory is completely true! A physicist says so!)

Shadow Lodge

A politician willing to stretch the truth (ie all of them) ... vs one with a sociopathic indifference to reality or sense.

I will will cut taxes and decrease the debt and create jobs!

I will work with senate democrats to repeal obamacare!

My healthcare plan has lower costs , covers people with pre existing conditions, and reduces the debt!

We will be served by genetically created mutants who are 100% cat and 100% dog

We will heat your homes with ice!

Our candy will be solid yet juicy!


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Its only a fallacy if either

1) The person is not an expert on the subject (My sister's aunt's cousin says the moon is made out of green cheese! And she's smart. Therefore the moon is made out of green cheese)

2) There's no consensus among the experts about whether you're right or not and you're only citing the experts that support your position. (ie string theory is completely true! A physicist says so!)

Bingo.

If an appeal to authority were always a fallacy, it would be fallacious to say, "One should typically heed the advice of a medical doctor when it comes to matters of one's physical health." That's an appeal to authority, to be sure, but it's a valid appeal because medical doctors are typically experts in their field - in which there is strong consensus about most health matters - and their expertise is relevant to matters of physical health.

Osirion

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bruunwald wrote:
... but [Romney's statements] were not grounded in fact or anything really helpful to telling what his actual plans are. However, being slick, seeming sincere, even when you are a known liar, ...

Am I just too old? This just comes across as a bit like ... "I'm right and you're wrong because ... well because my dad's bigger..." And while I'm just quoting poor Bruunwald here, this attitude/opinion seems to be fairly popular.

And then we say things like "Idiocy as usual" as though being an @$$ makes you appear smarter.

First of all, If what Romney said was lies, then why didn't Obama correct the statements? If nothing else, that tells me that there is at least an element of truth to many (most?) of the statements.

But more than that, people who seem to defend Obama seem to do so with the same lack of truth/facts that they accuse Romney supporters of doing.

So, riddle me this Batman... What has Obama actually accomplished in the four years he has been in office?

Now I'm not as News savy as many people here, but here is what I see in my little corner of the world...

Healthcare -- Originally it was cited as addressing affordable healthcare. Somehow this changed and became a quest to force (not provide) healthcare to everyone. My insurance costs have increased. My deductibles have increased. And I know a number of smaller business people where this plan was crippling to their businesses. I have a good doctor friend who also doesn't see this as a helpful piece of legislation. (And I think I saw his head swell when he said that he liked the term "Obamacare".)

Dodd-Frank -- Ok, I'm in the Mortgage industry and have been for about 15 years. Predatory lending was a problem. A good chunk of the problem was outside of mortgage lenders, however, and I've seen very little written about that. (We had a real estate agent tell us that he would send us all his business if we ONLY put his buyers in option ARMs. We didn't get any of his business -- but you know he went somewhere...) Regardless, there are some good things in this bill -- but there is a LOT that is not good and actually ends up penalizing the borrower more than the lender. We still spend an incredible amount of time trying to explain to borrowers why we are not allowed to do certain things.

Those are two areas that I directly see that are being talked about. More than that, what has actually been done? And more than that, why do people continue to support and defend his mediocrity?

I didn't like Clinton at all -- but even I can see that Clinton actually did a good job in the position. Obama isn't Clinton -- not even close. So why do people defend Obama to this degree with little to no facts and very little good.

I paid more this summer in utilities than I ever have -- and I don't have AC. Unemployment is up. Taxes are up. The deficit is way up. We have not ended the wars he said he would end.

So what has he actually done? And why do people defend him so much?

(And for what it's worth, I don't necessarily think that Romney can deliver either -- I just don't see the same blind devotion/excuse making/enabling that I see in the Obama camp.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Moff Rimmer wrote:
First of all, If what Romney said was lies, then why didn't Obama correct the statements?

Actually, we're not quite sure. By all accounts, there were a lot of things Romney said that were plainly false, or had gaping holes that Obama did not take advantage of like he should have. Obama played very defensively when he didn't really need to, and it hurt how he was perceived. You can probably expect a more attack-ready Obama next time he's on the debate stage.

Quote:
If nothing else, that tells me that there is at least an element of truth to many (most?) of the statements.

It doesn't really tell you anything. If you want to know whether Romney's statements were truthful or not, look into them. It's part of your civic duty to be an informed voter. Politifact is a non-partisan, Pulitzer Prize-winning website that fact-checks political figures. You can review the truthfulness of Romney's claims there, as well as the truthfulness of Obama's.

Quote:
But more than that, people who seem to defend Obama seem to do so with the same lack of truth/facts that they accuse Romney supporters of doing.

There are certainly those on both sides of the aisle who manipulate facts to suit their agenda. That said, one side makes a regular habit of it and seems relatively unashamed by it. The other does it far less often and takes its own to task when it happens.

Quote:
So, riddle me this Batman... What has Obama actually accomplished in the four years he has been in office?

Happily, a website exists to answer precisely this question. It's not complete, but there's enough there to handily dispel the idea that Obama hasn't done anything.

Quote:

Now I'm not as News savy as many people here, but here is what I see in my little corner of the world...

Healthcare -- Originally it was cited as addressing affordable healthcare. Somehow this changed and became a quest to force (not provide) healthcare to everyone. My insurance costs have increased. My deductibles have increased. And I know a number of smaller business people where this plan was crippling to their businesses. I have a good doctor friend who also doesn't see this as a helpful piece of legislation. (And I think I saw his head swell when he said that he liked the term "Obamacare".)

Go ahead and take a look at this page for an in-depth look at the expected impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

I find your mention of it being "crippling" to businesses curious. The provision of the law which penalizes employers for failing to provide health insurance does not go into effect until 2014. What provisions of the law have caused the small business people you mention to have their businesses crippled?

Quote:
Those are two areas that I directly see that are being talked about. More than that, what has actually been done? And more than that, why do people continue to support and defend his mediocrity?

Because we don't see his Presidency as a mediocre one.

Quote:
I didn't like Clinton at all -- but even I can see that Clinton actually did a good job in the position. Obama isn't Clinton -- not even close. So why do people defend Obama to this degree with little to no facts and very little good.

Your admitted ignorance of the facts is not the same thing as the facts being non-existent.

Quote:
I paid more this summer in utilities than I ever have -- and I don't have AC.

That's Obama's fault...how?


Moff Rimmer wrote:
Bruunwald wrote:
... but [Romney's statements] were not grounded in fact or anything really helpful to telling what his actual plans are. However, being slick, seeming sincere, even when you are a known liar, ...

Am I just too old? This just comes across as a bit like ... "I'm right and you're wrong because ... well because my dad's bigger..." And while I'm just quoting poor Bruunwald here, this attitude/opinion seems to be fairly popular.

And then we say things like "Idiocy as usual" as though being an @$$ makes you appear smarter.

First of all, If what Romney said was lies, then why didn't Obama correct the statements? If nothing else, that tells me that there is at least an element of truth to many (most?) of the statements.

But more than that, people who seem to defend Obama seem to do so with the same lack of truth/facts that they accuse Romney supporters of doing.

So, riddle me this Batman... What has Obama actually accomplished in the four years he has been in office?

Now I'm not as News savy as many people here, but here is what I see in my little corner of the world...

Healthcare -- Originally it was cited as addressing affordable healthcare. Somehow this changed and became a quest to force (not provide) healthcare to everyone. My insurance costs have increased. My deductibles have increased. And I know a number of smaller business people where this plan was crippling to their businesses. I have a good doctor friend who also doesn't see this as a helpful piece of legislation. (And I think I saw his head swell when he said that he liked the term "Obamacare".)

Dodd-Frank -- Ok, I'm in the Mortgage industry and have been for about 15 years. Predatory lending was a problem. A good chunk of the problem was outside of mortgage lenders, however, and I've seen very little written about that. (We had a real estate agent tell us that he would send us all his business if we ONLY put his buyers in option ARMs. We didn't get any of his business -- but you know...

I'm going to assume your post was in good faith and respond in kind. :)

First, we could argue forever about whether Romney lied. He made many bold claims, and I have yet to see a workable plan for achieving them.

Second, regarding accomplishments:

I think Healthcare is a big deal, even if it would be unfair to give all the credit (blame?) to the president. Democrats have been trying for decades. The fact that your healthcare costs went up isn't really relevant...they've been going up at ever-increasing rates for years. I'm sorry, but the fact that some people don't like the plan isn't terribly surprising -- or meaningful.

I also credit his actions with helping avoid a depression, though once again no single person deserves the credit (or the blame).

Overall, there have been disappointments, but he is better than a return to failed trickle-down economic policies.

Taldor

I'm not a big fan of a bunch of his 'executive' actions. But I'm a canuck so he's not going for my vote. I also don't understand why he was popular abroad, other than the fact that he was someone other than a Bush.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
I'm not a big fan of a bunch of his 'executive' actions. But I'm a canuck so he's not going for my vote. I also don't understand why he was popular abroad, other than the fact that he was someone other than a Bush.

The fact that he picked up trampling on the Bill of Rights right where Bush left off is by far my biggest disappointment. Sadly, no one seems to talk about that...

Shadow Lodge

bugleyman wrote:
First, we could argue forever about whether Romney lied. He made many bold claims, and I have yet to see a workable plan for achieving them.

I could argue forever for a geocentric solar system too.

Its a lie because 1) its wrong. 2) he knows its wrong. There's no way that someone who's money has seen more exotic locals than the dos equis most interesting man in the world doesn't know about tax loopholes that make shipping jobs overseas deductable.

Taldor

BigNorseWolf wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
First, we could argue forever about whether Romney lied. He made many bold claims, and I have yet to see a workable plan for achieving them.

I could argue forever for a geocentric solar system too.

Its a lie because 1) its wrong. 2) he knows its wrong. There's no way that someone who's money has seen more exotic locals than the dos equis most interesting man in the world doesn't know about tax loopholes that make shipping jobs overseas deductable.

It's not a loophole really. It's because corporations are taxed on their profits (gross - expenses) instead of their gross income. Closing down a plant, cleaning an industrial site up and shipping things overseas incurs expenses - those expenses get knocked off of gross income.

I'd say to be a loophole it would have to be a provision snuck in, instead of just the way things have been since the act was written.

One way to fix that would be to meddle with the definition of an 'expense' to exclude expenses related to moving plants overseas. And then your tax act grows by a page or five.

And yeah, Romney has to know that's the way the tax system works, at minimum he'll have taken at a tax class at law school.

Taldor

bugleyman wrote:
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
I'm not a big fan of a bunch of his 'executive' actions. But I'm a canuck so he's not going for my vote. I also don't understand why he was popular abroad, other than the fact that he was someone other than a Bush.
The fact that he picked up trampling on the Bill of Rights right where Bush left off is by far my biggest disappointment. Sadly, no one seems to talk about that...

Yup. And the revolving door between lobby groups and the justice department spun faster and faster.


bugleyman wrote:
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
I'm not a big fan of a bunch of his 'executive' actions. But I'm a canuck so he's not going for my vote. I also don't understand why he was popular abroad, other than the fact that he was someone other than a Bush.
The fact that he picked up trampling on the Bill of Rights right where Bush left off is by far my biggest disappointment. Sadly, no one seems to talk about that...

The total lack of action on climate change is by far the biggest issue. The Bill of Rights isn't going to mean a damn thing when the s#++ really hits the fan.

Of course, the Republicans plan on pushing it into high gear, so what can you do?

Taldor

thejeff wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
I'm not a big fan of a bunch of his 'executive' actions. But I'm a canuck so he's not going for my vote. I also don't understand why he was popular abroad, other than the fact that he was someone other than a Bush.
The fact that he picked up trampling on the Bill of Rights right where Bush left off is by far my biggest disappointment. Sadly, no one seems to talk about that...

The total lack of action on climate change is by far the biggest issue. The Bill of Rights isn't going to mean a damn thing when the s##! really hits the fan.

Of course, the Republicans plan on pushing it into high gear, so what can you do?

Well he did delay that pipeline from Alberta. Buy our tar sands oil dammnit! We need the money.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

The total lack of action on climate change is by far the biggest issue. The Bill of Rights isn't going to mean a damn thing when the s##! really hits the fan.

Of course, the Republicans plan on pushing it into high gear, so what can you do?

Well he did delay that pipeline from Alberta. Buy our tar sands oil dammnit! We need the money.

Yeah. Between getting our energy from mountaintop coal, tar sands and fracking, there's no way anything bad could happen to the environment. Drill, baby, drill! It'll last 4-evah!

Flammable tapwater is just a negligible side effect of our rugged, independent awesomeness.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
thejeff wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
I'm not a big fan of a bunch of his 'executive' actions. But I'm a canuck so he's not going for my vote. I also don't understand why he was popular abroad, other than the fact that he was someone other than a Bush.
The fact that he picked up trampling on the Bill of Rights right where Bush left off is by far my biggest disappointment. Sadly, no one seems to talk about that...

The total lack of action on climate change is by far the biggest issue. The Bill of Rights isn't going to mean a damn thing when the s##! really hits the fan.

Of course, the Republicans plan on pushing it into high gear, so what can you do?

Well he did delay that pipeline from Alberta. Buy our tar sands oil dammnit! We need the money.

We have been. There's a pipeline from Alberta to Illinois. That's the Keystone pipeline. The Keystone XL pipeline is a proposed extension of it to the Gulf of Mexico to make it cheaper to export the refined petroleum products out if North America. One effect of it would make your tar sand oil more valuable at the Gulf then in the Midwest, so more of it would head there. Causing refineries in Illinois to close and gas prices in the mid-west to rise.

Qadira

'Just leave this here.

Taldor

Take that freedom of speech!

In a country of 300 million people, you are bound to get a few idiots working as teachers.


Crimson Jester wrote:
'Just leave this here.

Yeah. That was just stupid. Teacher deserves a smack. She is an embarrassment.

Qadira

Who won? Honey Boo-boo and her family. The TLC network just tripled their salary per episode. Decline and fall, indeed. Rome had bloodsports, we have reality television.


Hate to say this, but yeah- at least with respect to health care, none of the stuff that anyone is complaining about has even come close to starting yet- in fact, at least in my field, it's been business as usual, aside from increased pursuit of people who are involved in all manner of SSI shenanigans- and even there a case could be made that that is still business as usual- SSI doesn't like to be cheated in any way shape or form.

Also, where do you get your electricity from?

Scott Betts wrote:
Moff Rimmer wrote:
First of all, If what Romney said was lies, then why didn't Obama correct the statements?

Actually, we're not quite sure. By all accounts, there were a lot of things Romney said that were plainly false, or had gaping holes that Obama did not take advantage of like he should have. Obama played very defensively when he didn't really need to, and it hurt how he was perceived. You can probably expect a more attack-ready Obama next time he's on the debate stage.

Quote:
If nothing else, that tells me that there is at least an element of truth to many (most?) of the statements.

It doesn't really tell you anything. If you want to know whether Romney's statements were truthful or not, look into them. It's part of your civic duty to be an informed voter. Politifact is a non-partisan, Pulitzer Prize-winning website that fact-checks political figures. You can review the truthfulness of Romney's claims there, as well as the truthfulness of Obama's.

Quote:
But more than that, people who seem to defend Obama seem to do so with the same lack of truth/facts that they accuse Romney supporters of doing.

There are certainly those on both sides of the aisle who manipulate facts to suit their agenda. That said, one side makes a regular habit of it and seems relatively unashamed by it. The other does it far less often and takes its own to task when it happens.

Quote:
So, riddle me this Batman... What has Obama actually accomplished in the four years he has been in office?

Happily, a website exists to answer precisely this question. It's not complete, but there's enough there to handily dispel the idea that Obama hasn't done anything.

Quote:

Now I'm not as News savy as many people here, but here is what I see in my little corner of the world...

Healthcare -- Originally it was cited as addressing affordable healthcare. Somehow this changed and became a quest to

...


Freehold DM wrote:
Hate to say this, but yeah- at least with respect to health care, none of the stuff that anyone is complaining about has even come close to starting yet- in fact, at least in my field, it's been business as usual, aside from increased pursuit of people who are involved in all manner of SSI shenanigans- and even there a case could be made that that is still business as usual- SSI doesn't like to be cheated in any way shape or form.

Notably, one of the coolest provisions of the law just went into effect earlier this week: Hospitals that regularly release their patients prematurely only to have them return within 30 days with the same problem will now be penalized a small portion of their Medicare funding.


That's a HUGE problem in my field.

Scott Betts wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Hate to say this, but yeah- at least with respect to health care, none of the stuff that anyone is complaining about has even come close to starting yet- in fact, at least in my field, it's been business as usual, aside from increased pursuit of people who are involved in all manner of SSI shenanigans- and even there a case could be made that that is still business as usual- SSI doesn't like to be cheated in any way shape or form.
Notably, one of the coolest provisions of the law just went into effect earlier this week: Hospitals that regularly release their patients prematurely only to have them return within 30 days with the same problem will now be penalized a small portion of their Medicare funding.


Moff Rimmer wrote:


Healthcare -- Originally it was cited as addressing affordable healthcare. Somehow this changed and became a quest to force (not provide) healthcare to everyone. My insurance costs have increased. My deductibles have increased. And I know a number of smaller business people where this plan was crippling to their businesses. I have a good doctor friend who also doesn't see this as a helpful piece of legislation. (And I think I saw his head swell when he said that he liked the term "Obamacare".)

Just curious, are you also saying that Obamacare is responsible for the past 50 years of rising health care costs? Looking around at some sources I'm seeing a pretty steady increase, never a decrease. Some years don't rise as fast as others, but it's always an increase.

Therefore, if you're going to pin health care costs on Obamacare, you can't just say "increase" because they always increase.

Dodd-Frank did have all it's teeth pulled. It might not have been good enough to begin with, but it wasn't passed right away and the longer it sat in Congress, the more people kept pulling stuff out of it. It would be nice to see a bill that gave states greater control over lending practices for mortgages, even if the backing organization is out of state.

Also, it boggles the mind to even think that Mr. "corporations are people" Romney who made a fortune on Wall Street is actually going to push for reforms and stronger regulation on any kind of financial institution.

Thought: if corporations are people, doesn't that mean according to the Thirteenth amendment that it's illegal to own them?


bugleyman wrote:
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
I'm not a big fan of a bunch of his 'executive' actions. But I'm a canuck so he's not going for my vote. I also don't understand why he was popular abroad, other than the fact that he was someone other than a Bush.
The fact that he picked up trampling on the Bill of Rights right where Bush left off is by far my biggest disappointment. Sadly, no one seems to talk about that...

That's because his actions in this regard cannot be defended. Hence, silence.


Thiago Cardozo wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
I'm not a big fan of a bunch of his 'executive' actions. But I'm a canuck so he's not going for my vote. I also don't understand why he was popular abroad, other than the fact that he was someone other than a Bush.
The fact that he picked up trampling on the Bill of Rights right where Bush left off is by far my biggest disappointment. Sadly, no one seems to talk about that...
That's because his actions in this regard cannot be defended. Hence, silence.

Yeah, I dont know what Bugleyman's going on about. I talk about it all the time.


The trampling of rights I think is more a matter of the office, with greater/lesser degrees depending on the individual in power. It's pretty standard fare around the world and over time that most leaders think they have valid reasons for limiting rights so that they can do their job. I don't agree with it or want it to happen, but it's so consistent that I have a hard time putting it on the shoulders of any one individual.

Look at Lincoln, that's a very complex relationship with individual rights if there ever was one. A lesser man probably would have trampled them even more.

I don't foresee a deeper protection of rights in America until some sort of conflict within the country. If things aren't bad enough to boil over as riots in major cities, it's not going to go the other way.

The only recent president to not increase executive power was Jimmy Carter, but being the first elected president after Nixon he wasn't really in a position to do so. And even he did things like unilaterally freezing Iranian assets.


Thiago Cardozo wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
I'm not a big fan of a bunch of his 'executive' actions. But I'm a canuck so he's not going for my vote. I also don't understand why he was popular abroad, other than the fact that he was someone other than a Bush.
The fact that he picked up trampling on the Bill of Rights right where Bush left off is by far my biggest disappointment. Sadly, no one seems to talk about that...
That's because his actions in this regard cannot be defended. Hence, silence.

That's essentially accurate. The best defense that can be mounted, unfortunately, is, "There are hypothetical reasons which might compel him to take these actions in the best interests of the country," but all we can do is speculate. None of us are privy to the details of decisions relating to national security, so there's nothing that can be offered by way of concrete explanation.

Shadow Lodge

Obama is responsible for skin cancer. The man has done NOTHING to stop the sun from rising in the east!


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Obama is responsible for skin cancer. The man has done NOTHING to stop the sun from rising in the east!

WRONG! Obama being reelected will bring about 1000 Years of Darkness (TM).

/Chuck Norris'd


I really hope Obama will still win.


I hope Chris Matthews continues to have meltdowns.


Kryzbyn wrote:
I hope Chris Matthews continues to have meltdowns.

whatever. Reince Preibus is a lying sack of crap.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
whatever. Reince Preibus is a lying sack of crap.

Thankfully we don't have to worry about him anymore.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
I'm not a big fan of a bunch of his 'executive' actions. But I'm a canuck so he's not going for my vote. I also don't understand why he was popular abroad, other than the fact that he was someone other than a Bush.

Killed Bin Laden

Ended the war in Iraq
Seems to be ending the war in Afghanistan
Far less likely to go full retard and invade Iran


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

Take that freedom of speech!

In a country of 300 million people, you are bound to get a few idiots working as teachers.

Students don't have freedom of speech in school. I was given a similar punishment for wearing a Mother Goose and Grim shirt. And I can totally understand the teacher saying it was inappropriate for class. It is something that can very likely cause violence in the classroom and many people find offensive.


Caineach wrote:
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

Take that freedom of speech!

In a country of 300 million people, you are bound to get a few idiots working as teachers.

Students don't have freedom of speech in school. I was given a similar punishment for wearing a Mother Goose and Grim shirt. And I can totally understand the teacher saying it was inappropriate for class. It is something that can very likely cause violence in the classroom and many people find offensive.

sorry, but I disagree. Where else are to going to learn to agree to disagree with someone if not school?

Shadow Lodge

It is easy to win a debate when you play fast and loose with the facts.

101 to 150 of 204 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / POLL: Who Won The 'First' Presidential Debate 2012 ? 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.