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

PaizoCon 2014!

Living under Obama's presidency


Off-Topic Discussions

551 to 600 of 1,595 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

But we (at least most of us) don't actually think we are elves.

There is a difference.


houstonderek wrote:
And we pretend to be elves. Whatever.

I don't believe I AM an elf though! Being able to recognize the line between fantasy and reality is important to me.

Andoran

No, you think you're liberals. but vote for moderate conservative values. That's worse than thinking you were abducted by aliens, imo.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Demand better. Don't settle. A slow slide into hell is still a slide into hell.


We vote for the most liberal values actually available. And work to change what's actually available, in primaries and in lower levels of government.


houstonderek wrote:
Demand better. Don't settle. A slow slide into hell is still a slide into hell.

OK, so we demand better. We feel better now, because we didn't settle, we're pure and we stood up for what's right. Did we actually accomplish anything? Is it better to slide faster into hell, if you're demanding perfection the whole way?


meatrace wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
And we pretend to be elves. Whatever.
I don't believe I AM an elf though! Being able to recognize the line between fantasy and reality is important to me.

Kucinich said he saw a UFO. He never said he went for a ride in one.


meatrace wrote:
Moro wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
I love Feingold. He's the only one I trust to be about what he says he's about. In the Democratic party that is.
I dunno, Kucinich is pretty bad ass.
He believes he was abducted by aliens!!! No thanks.

Yes, but in the context provided there is no doubting that he is all about what he says he is about.

Andoran

Again, war is my "deal breaker" issue. Sorry.

Andoran

It's kind of sad that The Dictator proves Sacha Baron Cohen more accurate about the real reason the Middle East is f**$ed than anything coming out of Clinton's or Obama's lying mouths. Iran in '53? Britain was butthurt they were thrown out. Iraq? Nationalized oil once again. Libya? The people are worse off now, but Qadaffi Duck nationalized the oil.

Chavez is probably really happy he isn't an Arab or a Persian.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

One for Comrade Samnell, if he's still perusing this thread, and one for me (I finished Ben Franklin and moved on to Malcolm Little):

Chris Hedges is a sanctimonious ass. I could barely make myself skim the first few paragraphs. Therein I learned that Hedges does not consider the Civil Rights Movement a "major corrective to American democracy." Or he chose to ignore it deliberately so he could pretend that all improvement (A notion the ad for his book attached to the article dismisses as an impossibility, I might ad!) comes through third parties who force the political elite to do as they wish.

Which actually doesn't surprise me. Either he truly doesn't consider it some kind of corrective or he's so dishonest and up his own ass that he'll omit the most obvious example of a movement that did not follow his script. White supremacist or just such an ass that he doesn't mind posing as one? Scumbag all the same.

(And yes I know the CPUSA was the first major political party that would actually go south and try to do voter registration, etc. But the notion that its great moral force and political power forced Truman to de-segregate the military or LBJ to sign the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts is just nuts.)


Samnell wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

One for Comrade Samnell, if he's still perusing this thread, and one for me (I finished Ben Franklin and moved on to Malcolm Little):

Chris Hedges is a sanctimonious ass. I could barely make myself skim the first few paragraphs. Therein I learned that Hedges does not consider the Civil Rights Movement a "major corrective to American democracy." Or he chose to ignore it deliberately so he could pretend that all improvement (A notion the ad for his book attached to the article dismisses as an impossibility, I might ad!) comes through third parties who force the political elite to do as they wish.

Which actually doesn't surprise me. Either he truly doesn't consider it some kind of corrective or he's so dishonest and up his own ass that he'll omit the most obvious example of a movement that did not follow his script. White supremacist or just such an ass that he doesn't mind posing as one? Scumbag all the same.

(And yes I know the CPUSA was the first major political party that would actually go south and try to do voter registration, etc. But the notion that its great moral force and political power forced Truman to de-segregate the military or LBJ to sign the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts is just nuts.)

I'd agree that it's been movements organizing outside of the 2 major parties that have driven the major correctives. I think he massively overemphasizes the effects of 3rd parties in the electoral arena. They sometimes provided the infrastructure for the movements, but that doesn't mean that it was the votes for them that carried the weight.


Hee hee!

I didn't even read the article, I just remembered that Comrade Samnell loves Chris Hedges almost as much as he loves Stephen Fry!


Who doesn't like Fry?!?!


You and I like Stephen Fry, but Samnell loves him (IIRC).

Just like he loves Chris Hedges.

Cheliax

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

Just a thought I've had but I have a question for all those people that mention voting for a third party candidate. Now admitadly my understanding of the way the American goverment is structured and run is limited but wouldent a third party candidate even if they were voted into office not still be (At least to some extent) be constrained by the way the American sytem of goverment works?


Kevin Mack wrote:
Just a thought I've had but I have a question for all those people that mention voting for a third party candidate. Now admitadly my understanding of the way the American goverment is structured and run is limited but wouldent a third party candidate even if they were voted into office not still be (At least to some extent) be constrained by the way the American sytem of goverment works?

Pretty much. She'd have a good deal of room to maneuver on foreign policy and could probably stop doing a lot of things domestically. OTOH, to do much significant Congress would have to cooperate, which would probably mean he wouldn't want to push the boundaries of presidential power against Congress.

Not that it matters, since a 3rd party candidate isn't going to win any time in the near future.


houstonderek wrote:
Demand better. Don't settle. A slow slide into hell is still a slide into hell.

I am demanding something better than Romney.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:


I'd agree that it's been movements organizing outside of the 2 major parties that have driven the major correctives. I think he massively overemphasizes the effects of 3rd parties in the electoral arena. They sometimes provided the infrastructure for the movements, but that doesn't mean that it was the votes for them that carried the weight.

Sure, but absent the stuff about third parties I think his point is trivial. Of course any significant change in politics involves ideas coming from outside the mainstream and then into it. It's true but doesn't really tell us anything except that the popularity of ideas changes over time and that that matters. The major anti-correctives largely follow the same story, even.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

You and I like Stephen Fry, but Samnell loves him (IIRC).

Just like he loves Chris Hedges.

I would totally do Stephen Fry. I would do him in a box with a fox and smeared in lox. I would do Fry, Samn-I-Am.

I wouldn't do Chris Hedges if he was secretly a meatsuit with Elijah Wood inside.


"All the major correctives to American democracy have come through movements and third parties that have operated outside the mainstream."

In all seriousness, though, dollars to donuts, if you write to Hedges he would be bewildered at your interpretation vis a vis the crypto-racism. Because, the Civil Rights Movement, even if some parts were allied heavily with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party certainly operated outside of the mainstream of American political life.

EDIT: As a rule of thumb, if the cops are beating your heads in, you're probably operating outside of the mainstream.

I know less about Truman's decision to desegregate the military, but I am unwilling to chalk that up to Democratic beneficience without reading up on it. I do seem to recall that most of FDR's equal rights stuff was passed under the pressure of A. Philip Randolph's 1940s March on Washington movement, for example.


Irontruth wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Demand better. Don't settle. A slow slide into hell is still a slide into hell.
I am demanding something better than Romney.

Woah, double avatar double take.


Samnell wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I'd agree that it's been movements organizing outside of the 2 major parties that have driven the major correctives. I think he massively overemphasizes the effects of 3rd parties in the electoral arena. They sometimes provided the infrastructure for the movements, but that doesn't mean that it was the votes for them that carried the weight.
Sure, but absent the stuff about third parties I think his point is trivial. Of course any significant change in politics involves ideas coming from outside the mainstream and then into it. It's true but doesn't really tell us anything except that the popularity of ideas changes over time and that that matters. The major anti-correctives largely follow the same story, even.

I think the point that you need an outside movement, not just ideas is both valid and important.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

"All the major correctives to American democracy have come through movements and third parties that have operated outside the mainstream."

In all seriousness, though, dollars to donuts, if you write to Hedges he would be bewildered at your interpretation vis a vis the crypto-racism. Because, the Civil Rights Movement, even if some parts were allied heavily with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party certainly operated outside of the mainstream of American political life.

EDIT: As a rule of thumb, if the cops are beating your heads in, you're probably operating outside of the mainstream.

I know less about Truman's decision to desegregate the military, but I am unwilling to chalk that up to Democratic beneficience without reading up on it. I do seem to recall that most of FDR's equal rights stuff was passed under the pressure of A. Philip Randolph's 1940s March on Washington movement, for example.

It's not the movement part I disagree with or the out of the mainstream part, it's the third party part. The movements that provided "major correctives" usually didn't do so through the threat of 3rd party electoral politics, but through strikes and protests.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kevin Mack wrote:
Just a thought I've had but I have a question for all those people that mention voting for a third party candidate. Now admitadly my understanding of the way the American goverment is structured and run is limited but wouldent a third party candidate even if they were voted into office not still be (At least to some extent) be constrained by the way the American sytem of goverment works?

A third party president could be ensured an absolute inability to get anything done unless that third party had already at least a plurality of Congress and had enough friends in the other two parties to cobble a working majority. But at that point it's not really a third party anymore.

That's how the one successful third party in American history worked: one major party pretty much destroyed itself and, helped a great deal by a few decades of previous massive demographic shifts, the Republicans went from a party that did not exist in 1850 to a near-miss at the presidency in 1856 and a clean win in 1860. But even then the Republicans did not have congressional majorities, though they did have a plurality, and so would not have been able to accomplish much of anything save for the fact that the Democrats helped them out by committing treason in the name of slavery.

At least we got abolition and the Reconstruction Amendments out of it, but actually making the latter two of those worth a damn (and the Bill of Rights along with it) was the yet-unfinished work of the twentieth century.


@Jeff--Yeah, I was just saying that I highly doubt Hedges doesn't consider the CRM a corrective blah blah blah whatever it was.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Samnell wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I'd agree that it's been movements organizing outside of the 2 major parties that have driven the major correctives. I think he massively overemphasizes the effects of 3rd parties in the electoral arena. They sometimes provided the infrastructure for the movements, but that doesn't mean that it was the votes for them that carried the weight.
Sure, but absent the stuff about third parties I think his point is trivial. Of course any significant change in politics involves ideas coming from outside the mainstream and then into it. It's true but doesn't really tell us anything except that the popularity of ideas changes over time and that that matters. The major anti-correctives largely follow the same story, even.
I think the point that you need an outside movement, not just ideas is both valid and important.

I considered that a given. Sorry I wasn't clear.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

"All the major correctives to American democracy have come through movements and third parties that have operated outside the mainstream."

In all seriousness, though, dollars to donuts, if you write to Hedges he would be bewildered at your interpretation vis a vis the crypto-racism. Because, the Civil Rights Movement, even if some parts were allied heavily with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party certainly operated outside of the mainstream of American political life.

EDIT: As a rule of thumb, if the cops are beating your heads in, you're probably operating outside of the mainstream.

If a major political party, and the combination of non-Southern democrats and liberal republicans works out to about a full party at the time, I count that as mainstream by definition.

I wouldn't say that Truman desegregated the military out of the goodness of his heart. That would be silly. But he also didn't do it because the CPUSA said mean things about segregation.


Not the Communist Party.

A. Philip Randolph.

Executive Order 9981

March on Washington movement

I disagree about the Civil Rights Movement.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Not the Communist Party.

A. Philip Randolph.

Executive Order 9981

March on Washington movement

I disagree about the Civil Rights Movement.

Maybe mainstream connotes different things to us? I consider anything which has a decent representation in the political establishment mainstream. That its violent opposition also has such representation isn't an issue to me since the mainstream is a range of positions, not a coherent ideology.

So yes, the US mainstream currently includes torture and magical rape-sensing uteruses.

On the CPUSA reference, I'm thinking back to Hedges' article. Randolph certainly deserves some credit for the integration of the military. I'm not sure how much because I don't know a whole lot about it except for how Truman did it over the objections of the brass.

Andoran

Irontruth wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Demand better. Don't settle. A slow slide into hell is still a slide into hell.
I am demanding something better than Romney.

Obama isn't it.


houstonderek wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Demand better. Don't settle. A slow slide into hell is still a slide into hell.
I am demanding something better than Romney.
Obama isn't it.

Is this a "Romney is better" claim?

or a "They're exactly the same" claim?

Andoran

It's a "they both suck major amounts of ass and suck Wall Street and Pentagon unmentionables, and will murder more" claim. Shades are irrelevant to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Obama will allow for gay marriage during your indefinite detention and/or shortly before he has you assassinated. They are different, HD!


houstonderek wrote:

It's a "they both suck major amounts of ass and suck Wall Street and Pentagon unmentionables, and will murder more" claim. Shades are irrelevant to me.

by that measure why vote for anyone? Neither Gary Johnson or Jill stein are going to dismantle the military.


So Romney's plan to dump trillions more into the Pentagon budget than Obama is only a shade? Romney's far more bellicose foreign policy and recycled Bush foreign policy advisors are just shades? Even more tax cuts and less regulation, particularly for Wall Street, are just shades?

Seriously, take everything you don't like about Obama, ramp it up to 11 then add in all the social conservative b+#@@#~+. That's what we'd see with Romney.
All he's interested in is the tax cuts and lack of financial regulation, but he's shown no inclination to push back against the neo-cons or the social conservatives. They put him there, he'll do what they want.

Norquist wrote:


All we have to do is replace Obama. ... We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate. [...]

Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Obama will allow for gay marriage during your indefinite detention and/or shortly before he has you assassinated. They are different, HD!

I'd rather be locked up forever without charges and/or assassinated by an administration that supports gay marriage than one that doesn't. In fact, I prefer the former to the latter by a large margin even if that's the only thing that distinguishes them.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Obama will allow for gay marriage during your indefinite detention and/or shortly before he has you assassinated. They are different, HD!

Ah yes, we're back to the "Obama is going to send drones to blow you up in your nice suburban home" bull.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

More power to you, then. I'll be voting for the guy that allows for gay marriage and is against indefinite detention and assassinations.


thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Obama will allow for gay marriage during your indefinite detention and/or shortly before he has you assassinated. They are different, HD!

Ah yes, we're back to the "Obama is going to send drones to blow you up in your nice suburban home" bull.

Are you telling me that he hasnt had US citizens killed? Are you telling me that he didnt sign indefinite detention into law? Or are you just mad cause your supporting the guy who supports those things?


TheWhiteknife wrote:
More power to you, then. I'll be voting for the guy that allows for gay marriage and is against indefinite detention and assassinations.

you may as well stay home. HE WON'T WIN!


meatrace wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
More power to you, then. I'll be voting for the guy that allows for gay marriage and is against indefinite detention and assassinations.
you may as well stay home. HE WON'T WIN!

Not with that attitude. ;p

srsly, I will not support indefinite detention. I will not support assassinations. I think anyone who does is crazy and evil.


I'm pretty pro assassination. Beats intractable wars.
And he won't win regardless. I doubt he'll get 1%.


Samnell wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Obama will allow for gay marriage during your indefinite detention and/or shortly before he has you assassinated. They are different, HD!
I'd rather be locked up forever without charges and/or assassinated by an administration that supports gay marriage than one that doesn't. In fact, I prefer the former to the latter by a large margin even if that's the only thing that distinguishes them.

The thing is, the world doesn't end in the next four years. A republican will eventually come back to power, will have all those practices normalized by Obama and all this power nicely put into place by him at his disposal. And he might, if he so desires, make life a living hell for all those he despises. In other words, all the accomplishments attained by the gay movement can only endure in a society respectful of its civil liberties. This tradeoff is a false one.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TheWhiteknife wrote:
meatrace wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
More power to you, then. I'll be voting for the guy that allows for gay marriage and is against indefinite detention and assassinations.
you may as well stay home. HE WON'T WIN!
Not with that attitude. I will not support indefinite detention. I will not support assassinations. I think anyone who does is crazy and evil.

So what, you're voting for Jill Stein so you feel better about yourself? Ok.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No, Im voting third party because I dont particulary want Obama or Romney to win. They both suck. I could just not vote, but Im going to try to get the libertarian party over 5% for matching funds and automatic ballot access. Like Ive said before, a future president Bachman or Perry or Santorum says thanks for the unchecked executive power, though.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Obama will allow for gay marriage during your indefinite detention and/or shortly before he has you assassinated. They are different, HD!

Ah yes, we're back to the "Obama is going to send drones to blow you up in your nice suburban home" bull.

Are you telling me that he hasnt had US citizens killed? Are you telling me that he didnt sign indefinite detention into law? Or are you just mad cause your supporting the guy who supports those things?

We've been through this. The assassinations have been overseas, in war zones or in areas where we couldn't get targets arrested because those areas weren't under the control of the local governments: tribal areas of Pakistan, much of Somalia and Yemen.

If he wants you, he'll send cops or feds not assassins.
As far as I know the abuses of the indefinite detention policy, like Maher Arar, were all under the Bush administration. Obama has used the courts for all the terror incidents I know of. Yes, it's possible there is stuff that hasn't come to light yet.
Nor am I happy with the drone strikes or the continuation of indefinite detention. I just get irritated at the "You shouldn't vote for Obama because he'll have you assassinated!!!" hyperbole.

Now, I suppose, if you're sending your ballot from a hidden location in the rebel held parts of Yemen, you might have reason to be concerned.


Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Samnell wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Obama will allow for gay marriage during your indefinite detention and/or shortly before he has you assassinated. They are different, HD!
I'd rather be locked up forever without charges and/or assassinated by an administration that supports gay marriage than one that doesn't. In fact, I prefer the former to the latter by a large margin even if that's the only thing that distinguishes them.
The thing is, the world doesn't end in the next four years. A republican will eventually come back to power, will have all those practices normalized by Obama and all this power nicely put into place by him at his disposal. And he might, if he so desires, make life a living hell for all those he despises. In other words, all the accomplishments attained by the gay movement can only endure in a society respectful of its civil liberties. This tradeoff is a false one.

Bull. Obama is not normalizing assassinating or disappearing people off the streets of America. Regardless of the texts of the laws or executive orders in question, the moment that starts happening the s$%~ hits the fan.

That and Romney will be far worse on all of this. And assuaging your conscience with protest votes won't change a damn thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thiago Cardozo wrote:


A republican will eventually come back to power, will have all those practices normalized by Obama and all this power nicely put into place by him at his disposal. And he might, if he so desires, make life a living hell for all those he despises. In other words, all the accomplishments attained by the gay movement can only endure in a society respectful of its civil liberties. This tradeoff is a false one.

We only have the choices we have. I'd much rather be voting for a social democrat, but no social democrat has even come close to being elected president of the US. So I'll take what I can get because something is better than nothing. And of course Obama is better than Romney on more than just gay marriage, but that's the thing that got brought up.

Of course, I encourage anyone who was otherwise going to vote for Romney to vote Libertarian or Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever. Ignore my stuff about you throwing your vote away and go on being the lovable mavericks you are. The last thing I want you to do is give a vote to Willard. Stand firm with your consciences. Especially if you're in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, or Colorado.


Samnell wrote:

We only have the choices we have. I'd much rather be voting for a social democrat, but no social democrat has even come close to being elected president of the US. So I'll take what I can get because something is better than nothing. And of course Obama is better than Romney on more than just gay marriage, but that's the thing that got brought up.

Of course, I encourage anyone who was otherwise going to vote for Romney to vote Libertarian or Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever. Ignore my stuff about you throwing your vote away and go on being the lovable mavericks you are. The last thing I want you to do is give a vote to Willard. Stand firm with your consciences. Especially if you're in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, or Colorado.

Seconded. I'd add a handful of others too that. Nevada. North Carolina. Wisconsin. If you live elsewhere, go with the protest vote.

Do take a look further down the ticket and see if you can stomach any of the Democrats there. For most states, those races are more important. And a lot of the Republican candidates are pretty far out there. The state races will have less impact on foreign policy, but more on your lives.

551 to 600 of 1,595 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Living under Obama's presidency All Messageboards

©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.