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

Living under Obama's presidency


Off-Topic Discussions

601 to 650 of 1,595 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:


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.

No he is not, I agree. What we do know is that Obama is normalizing persecution of critics of its government, a culture of secrecy which is unprecedent, and the secret interpretation of laws. That will be his legacy.

Though Romney's positions might be worse than Obama's I doubt his ability to implement them in quite the efficient way Obama has done it. Bush was only able to start this process because of the tragedy of 9/11, which weakened the opposition to his policies. Romney does not have nearly the same political leverage. The problem is Obama does not need one. There is no opposition to his policies in this regard. In fact republicans cannot even find differences in ideology to explore in this election. So, he basically can do whatever he wants, even if he wants a little less than Romney.


thejeff wrote:
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.

Oh that makes it ok. You'll only be drone striked with no oversight if you go to a country that we're at war at. Or ones we're not, like Pakistan, Yemen, or Somalia. Forgive me if that makes me less excited for another 4 years under the rule of a warmonger.

thejeff wrote:

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.

Right. But he did sign into law the NDAA (of which section 1021 isnt an appropriation, so doesnt expire after 2 years) which expands the indefinite detention provision to include not just Al-quaida, but "associated forces". Further, it includes not just people who belong to these groups, (whether directly or not) but anyone who "substantively supports" them. Now here's the rub: tell me who is included in those terms. If I invite Anwar al-Alaki over for dinner, does that qualify me? If so, order up some fresh, no-trial, no-lawyer detention for ol' Dubya.

thejeff wrote:


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.

So saying that the guy wo has drone struck citizens might drone strike more citizens is hyperbole now? Who woulda thought?

thejeff wrote:


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.

I like that you ended with humour to lighten the mood. (and it was quite funny) Its appreciated. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TheWhiteknife wrote:
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.

A vote for Romney will surely do nothing to restrain executive power. A vote for Obama will surely do nothing to restrain executive power. A vote for anybody else will surely do nothing to restrain executive power.

You smell just the same as all the rest of us.


Samnell wrote:

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.

Yeah, I'm not sure what you're referring to. I don't see any reference to the CP in the Hedges article. He seems to draw the historical line with the Socialists and then points to FDR without mentioning the Commies.

The two wikipedia articles I linked don't say a whole lot, detail-wise, but re: FDR: "Just a week before the march was to take place, an “alarmed President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802, establishing the first Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC).” Mayor La Guardia of New York City met with MOWM leadership and informed them of the President’s intentions."

And about Truman: "In 1947, A. Philip Randolph, along with colleague Grant Reynolds, renewed efforts to end discrimination in the armed services, forming the Committee Against Jim Crow in Military Service and Training, later renamed the League for Non-Violent Civil Disobedience Against Military Segregation."

Re: the Civil Rights Movement: no expert, and there can be all kinds of arguing I suppose, but I don't really see any "decent representation in the political establishment mainstream" until Kennedy's announcement of a Civil Rights Act in '63--after roughly eight years of bus boycotts, sit-ins, Freedom Rides, marches, etc., etc.

It seems to follow Hedges's script to me.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Right. But he did sign into law the NDAA (of which section 1021 isnt an appropriation, so doesnt expire after 2 years) which expands the indefinite detention provision to include not just Al-quaida, but "associated forces". Further, it includes not just people who belong to these groups, (whether directly or not) but anyone who "substantively supports" them. Now here's the rub: tell me who is included in those terms. If I invite Anwar al-Alaki over for dinner, does that qualify me? If so, order up some fresh, no-trial, no-lawyer detention for ol' Dubya.

Recently a group of journalists and activists asked for an injuction of this section, since they felt that it was having a chilling effect on their work. The justice presiding it asked for the government to explain whether the provision could be applied to any of the people involved in the suit and it responded it could not "confirm or deny". It could not explain what it means to "offer support for associated forces" for its meaning was secret. The justice decided for the injunction. The government fought back and won.

Note, this is that part of the NDAA that Obama faked concern and was "sorry" that it ended up included in the NDAA. And he fought tooth and nail to keep it there.


thejeff wrote:

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.

Now this I can agree with. But also look at the republicans too. Depending on where you live, they can be either complete whackos or pretty smart. There is a giant difference between Rick Santorum and Justin Amash.


Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Recently a group of journalists and activists asked for an injuction of this section, since they felt that it was having a chilling effect on their work.

I believe that's more Chris Hedges!

Samnell must be in heaven!


Thiago Cardozo wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Right. But he did sign into law the NDAA (of which section 1021 isnt an appropriation, so doesnt expire after 2 years) which expands the indefinite detention provision to include not just Al-quaida, but "associated forces". Further, it includes not just people who belong to these groups, (whether directly or not) but anyone who "substantively supports" them. Now here's the rub: tell me who is included in those terms. If I invite Anwar al-Alaki over for dinner, does that qualify me? If so, order up some fresh, no-trial, no-lawyer detention for ol' Dubya.

Recently a group of journalists and activists asked for an injuction of this section, since they felt that it was having a chilling effect on their work. The justice presiding it asked for the government to explain whether the provision could be applied to any of the people involved in the suit and it responded it could not "confirm or deny". It could not explain what it means to "offer support for associated forces" for its meaning was secret. The justice decided for the injunction. The government fought back and won.

Note, this is that part of the NDAA that Obama faked concern and was "sorry" that it ended up included in the NDAA. And he fought tooth and nail to keep it there.

Oh, I know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

When you go through Comrade Knife's link, make sure and favorite my post about my friend Omar!

I think it's one of my most-favorited posts.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
So saying that the guy wo has drone struck citizens might drone strike more citizens is hyperbole now? Who woulda thought?

No. It's the claim that because it's citizens, it's just as likely to be used on the streets of America as in a war zone where we've got troops killing people anyway.

That's the hyperbole.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Seconded. I'd add a handful of others too that. Nevada. North Carolina. Wisconsin. If you live elsewhere, go with the protest vote.

Full disclosure:

Michigan was sort of a swing state back in '00 and I voted for Nader here. It felt very righteous and accomplished nothing. I mean I like feeling good, but I've got a working right hand and access to all kinds of other things that make me feel good like porn and my right hand and history books and my right hand and games.

The whole third party thing does not work in a two party system. Worse, it has perverse results since it's not like the party you prefer least is losing your vote. That party never had it. Instead it's the party you agree more with losing your vote, which weakens that party and makes its winning harder. That further motivates it to try to be still less like I'd prefer. So even if it later wins on a platform more distant from me, I get less than I would have if I'd just stuck with them. These are all losing outcomes, so far as I can tell.

But libertarians? Ignore all of that. Vote for the Big Government Statue party. I want you to. I admire your conviction and think it could really do a lot of good for the nation. Stick to it no matter what this leftist says.

Andoran

meatrace wrote:
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.

I'm pretty sure neither would have classified kill lists and conduct illegal wars in Yemen and Pakistan.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:

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.

Now this I can agree with. But also look at the republicans too. Depending on where you live, they can be either complete whackos or pretty smart. There is a giant difference between Rick Santorum and Justin Amash.

But even Justin Amash votes for Boehner for Speaker.


Samnell wrote:


Full disclosure:
Michigan was sort of a swing state back in '00 and I voted for Nader here. It felt very righteous and accomplished nothing. I mean I like feeling good, but I've got a working right hand and access to all kinds of other things that make me feel good like porn and my right hand and history books and my right hand and games.

Your right hand and a collection of Chris Hedges columns?

Hee hee!

And on that note, good night you princes of Maine, you kings of New England.

Andoran

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.

I know. It's the "enemy". Sorry. Can't find an American news source with any integrity (except the Black Agenda Report, but they HATE Obama, so they must be self hating racists or something. That's the only way we can dislike Obama, that's the Dem line, right?).

But, for that it's worth...


houstonderek wrote:
meatrace wrote:
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.
I'm pretty sure neither would have classified kill lists and conduct illegal wars in Yemen and Pakistan.

I still want to know how exactly people think we should handle a situation like Pakistan, where we have a legal war in Afghanistan with the enemy basing itself across the border in areas of Pakistan the government doesn't really control.

Just let them go once the cross the border? Declare war on Pakistan?

The usual answer is we shouldn't be in Afghanistan, which may be true but doesn't really address the legal issue.


Like Nixon and Cambodia?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Like Nixon and Cambodia?

Yeah. I know.

At least we're using drones and not B-52s.

I don't know the answer. You can't win if you can't attack the enemy's bases. You shouldn't expand the war.

Maybe there isn't an answer other than: War sucks. Don't do that.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Like Nixon and Cambodia?

Yeah. Like that. Empire sometimes requires creative new rules.


thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Like Nixon and Cambodia?

Yeah. I know.

At least we're using drones and not B-52s.

I don't know the answer. You can't win if you can't attack the enemy's bases. You shouldn't expand the war.

Maybe there isn't an answer other than: War sucks. Don't do that.

No war but the class war!

Vive le Galt!

I'm going to bed!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

When you go through Comrade Knife's link, make sure and favorite my post about my friend Omar!

I think it's one of my most-favorited posts.

Yeah, that story is great. Your parents are awesome. And yes, the number of fans has grown.


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

Or maybe they're different in some ways, similar in others? Nah, that can't be it.


thejeff wrote:


Maybe there isn't an answer other than: War sucks. Don't do that.

Thats it.

And about Boehner/Amash. Yeah, I didnt say hes the greatest or never did wrong. I compared him to Santorum. ;)


Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

When you go through Comrade Knife's link, make sure and favorite my post about my friend Omar!

I think it's one of my most-favorited posts.

Yeah, that story is great. Your parents are awesome. And yes, the number of fans has grown.

I love that story.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Yeah, I'm not sure what you're referring to. I don't see any reference to the CP in the Hedges article. He seems to draw the historical line with the Socialists and then points to FDR without mentioning the Commies.

I'm generalizing from his point about third parties needing to make the political establishment do stuff. That has happened, but it's not required. Sometimes the establishment moves without the threat of a third party, or with only a trivial outside party involved like, sorry, the CPUSA.

However after I wrote that post I went and read some Foner. He's up into the late 30s now and spent quite a bit of time talking about the Popular Front, which apparently was at least pretty influential among leftists for a few years. So I'll back off a little on the CP being totally marginal in the 30s. It seems like while they remained a tiny fringe party there was a lot of interaction and organization for social justice with people outside the party.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Re: the Civil Rights Movement: no expert, and there can be all kinds of arguing I suppose, but I don't really see any "decent representation in the political establishment mainstream" until Kennedy's announcement of a Civil Rights Act in '63--after roughly eight years of bus boycotts, sit-ins, Freedom Rides, marches, etc., etc.

It seems to follow Hedges's script to me.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957, ushered through by LBJ and filibustered (unsuccessfully) by Strom Thurmond came during those eight years. It got watered down badly but Wikipedia says a few percent more black people got to vote. That's a step up and it was the first civil rights act since Reconstruction. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 did more still. It's progress and both represent a new commitment from the political establishment to civil rights. Of course the CRA of 1964 eclipses the lot.

Ike also sent the 101st Airborne to make sure the Little Rock Nine could go to school all the way back in '57, which was pretty groundshaking in its own way even if it was a brief and non-legislative thing.

Those don't all represent equal degrees of mainstream support, of course. It's a process.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman 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!
Or maybe they're different in some ways, similar in others? Nah, that can't be it.

No thats exactly it. Its the way that theyre similar that scare me and disqualify them both for me. I really cannot fathom how anyone can support either one.

Andoran

thejeff wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
meatrace wrote:
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.
I'm pretty sure neither would have classified kill lists and conduct illegal wars in Yemen and Pakistan.

I still want to know how exactly people think we should handle a situation like Pakistan, where we have a legal war in Afghanistan with the enemy basing itself across the border in areas of Pakistan the government doesn't really control.

Just let them go once the cross the border? Declare war on Pakistan?

The usual answer is we shouldn't be in Afghanistan, which may be true but doesn't really address the legal issue.

We should have not escalated the damn thing. Casualties were near ZERO and Taliban raids nearly non-existent in 2008. With 10,000 troops in the whole damned country. Since Obama took over, a stable situation erupted into an untenable joke, more American solders (by a considerable margin) died than before Obama was in office, and drone strikes are making it EASIER for the Taliban to get support and more fighters.

Sorry, the facts don't agree with your excuses.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
meatrace wrote:
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.
I'm pretty sure neither would have classified kill lists and conduct illegal wars in Yemen and Pakistan.

I still want to know how exactly people think we should handle a situation like Pakistan, where we have a legal war in Afghanistan with the enemy basing itself across the border in areas of Pakistan the government doesn't really control.

Just let them go once the cross the border? Declare war on Pakistan?

The usual answer is we shouldn't be in Afghanistan, which may be true but doesn't really address the legal issue.

The only issue is it's illegal. Which makes Obama every bit the war criminal Bush was. Period.

That you seem to not think so is irrelevant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:


We should have not escalated the damn thing. Casualties were near ZERO and Taliban raids nearly non-existent in 2008. With 10,000 troops in the whole damned country. Since Obama took over, a stable situation erupted into an untenable joke, more American solders (by a considerable margin) died than before Obama was in office, and drone strikes are making it EASIER for the Taliban to get support and more fighters.

Sorry, the facts don't agree with your excuses.

I actually disagree with you HD. We shouldnt have gotten involved to begin with. As soon as the Taliban offered to extradite, we should have agreed and put him on trial according to our justice system. All without setting foot inside of Afghanistan.

Andoran

4 people marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:
bugleyman 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!
Or maybe they're different in some ways, similar in others? Nah, that can't be it.
No thats exactly it. Its the way that theyre similar that scare me and disqualify them both for me. I really cannot fathom how anyone can support either one.

They both like killing people we have no business even bothering. They both like the taste of Wall Street semen. They both like eroding our basic rights. They both like lying to us.

That's enough to get me to stop playing their game as well.

And, amen, Brother.

Andoran

TheWhiteknife wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


We should have not escalated the damn thing. Casualties were near ZERO and Taliban raids nearly non-existent in 2008. With 10,000 troops in the whole damned country. Since Obama took over, a stable situation erupted into an untenable joke, more American solders (by a considerable margin) died than before Obama was in office, and drone strikes are making it EASIER for the Taliban to get support and more fighters.

Sorry, the facts don't agree with your excuses.

I actually disagree with you HD. We shouldnt have gotten involved to begin with. As soon as the Taliban offered to extradite, we should have agreed and put him on trial according to our justice system. All without setting foot inside of Afghanistan.

I wasn't going that far back, sorry. I agree, of course. I was just referring to Obama's part in the mess.

And the whole damned thing (9/11) probably would have been avoided had Clinton just taken the Sudan's offer to give us Osama after the embassy bombings in Africa.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:

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.

Now this I can agree with. But also look at the republicans too. Depending on where you live, they can be either complete whackos or pretty smart. There is a giant difference between Rick Santorum and Justin Amash.
But even Justin Amash votes for Boehner for Speaker.

Most Representatives vote with their party almost all the time. There are so many of them and they're up for election so often that their individual power is virtually nil until they're up into leadership positions and thus deciding their party's position. Even Senators rarely go very far from the script.

(The moral of the story is that voting for the person is a clear mistake. One should generally vote in a strictly partisan manner in favor of the party that more closely matches your preferences.)

Anyway, Amash:

Amash votes with the GOP 75% of the time.

Most Representatives are justly obscure and no one around those numbers rang any bells to me, so I went to the Senate for a comparison. Amash's 75% is comparable to Teahadist Jim De Mint's party loyalty.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


We should have not escalated the damn thing. Casualties were near ZERO and Taliban raids nearly non-existent in 2008. With 10,000 troops in the whole damned country. Since Obama took over, a stable situation erupted into an untenable joke, more American solders (by a considerable margin) died than before Obama was in office, and drone strikes are making it EASIER for the Taliban to get support and more fighters.

Sorry, the facts don't agree with your excuses.

I actually disagree with you HD. We shouldnt have gotten involved to begin with. As soon as the Taliban offered to extradite, we should have agreed and put him on trial according to our justice system. All without setting foot inside of Afghanistan.

That much I agree with. I'm a lot less convinced Afghanistan was stable in 2008.


Samnell wrote:
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:

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.

Now this I can agree with. But also look at the republicans too. Depending on where you live, they can be either complete whackos or pretty smart. There is a giant difference between Rick Santorum and Justin Amash.
But even Justin Amash votes for Boehner for Speaker.

Most Representatives vote with their party almost all the time. There are so many of them and they're up for election so often that their individual power is virtually nil until they're up into leadership positions and thus deciding their party's position. Even Senators rarely go very far from the script.

(The moral of the story is that voting for the person is a clear mistake. One should generally vote in a strictly partisan manner in favor of the party that more closely matches your preferences.)

Anyway, Amash:

Amash votes with the GOP 75% of the time.

Most Representatives are justly obscure and no one around those numbers rang any bells to me, so I went to the Senate for a comparison. Amash's 75% is comparable to Teahadist Jim De Mint's party loyalty.

Though to be fair to Amash (and to Jim) Amash tends to break away on the crazier votes and DeMint when they're not being crazy enough.

Andoran

thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
houstonderek wrote:


We should have not escalated the damn thing. Casualties were near ZERO and Taliban raids nearly non-existent in 2008. With 10,000 troops in the whole damned country. Since Obama took over, a stable situation erupted into an untenable joke, more American solders (by a considerable margin) died than before Obama was in office, and drone strikes are making it EASIER for the Taliban to get support and more fighters.

Sorry, the facts don't agree with your excuses.

I actually disagree with you HD. We shouldnt have gotten involved to begin with. As soon as the Taliban offered to extradite, we should have agreed and put him on trial according to our justice system. All without setting foot inside of Afghanistan.
That much I agree with. I'm a lot less convinced Afghanistan was stable in 2008.

Again, almost zero casualties on '08 and little Taliban activity. We were playing "whack-a-mole" basically. It's a losing proposition now.

I have no clue why anyone thinks Obama's foreign policy is so much "better" than Bush's. We have zero respect around the world (again) and any good will Obama got for not being Bush long since evaporated. The Arab world hates us, European leaders largely think Obama is a joke, China laughs at us, and the Chavenistas think Obama is a useful fool (see: going after Honduras for actually following their constitution and ousting a president that broke the law).

Yeah. Obama's the man.


houstonderek wrote:
meatrace wrote:
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.
I'm pretty sure neither would have classified kill lists and conduct illegal wars in Yemen and Pakistan.

Dude, I have a kill list. But you show your own stripes: you're not an absolutist when it comes to candidates you've already decided you like for other reasons. Guaranteed under any president's watch people will die by the hands of American forces. So, yes, it's all shades of grey.

Grand Lodge

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

Again, he didn't send drones against the paper boy next door. Who he had killed was a treasonous man who dedicated himself to Al Quaida aiding and abetting killers of our soldiers and civilians like the paper boy next door.

If you declare war against our country, if you aid and abet and take up the uniform of soldiers or terrorists who kill our people, then you're a legitimate target, even if your official citizenry is American.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
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?

Again, he didn't send drones against the paper boy next door. Who he had killed was a treasonous man who dedicated himself to Al Quaida aiding and abetting killers of our soldiers and civilians like the paper boy next door.

If you declare war against our country, if you aid and abet and take up the uniform of soldiers or terrorists who kill our people, then you're a legitimate target, even if your official citizenry is American.

Let us talk about "signature strikes", then. How about, "you fit some hazy profile, though we have no idea who you're" strikes?

And indefinite detention? Without review?

Edited for tone :p


meatrace wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
meatrace wrote:
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.
I'm pretty sure neither would have classified kill lists and conduct illegal wars in Yemen and Pakistan.
Dude, I have a kill list. But you show your own stripes: you're not an absolutist when it comes to candidates you've already decided you like for other reasons. Guaranteed under any president's watch people will die by the hands of American forces. So, yes, it's all shades of grey.

Yeah, but (hopefully) you don't have the power to act on it and you don't use public money to conduct the assassinations while at the same time refusing to give any concrete explanation of how the names are put into it.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do like Obama, he's charming and well spoken and he seems like a down to earth fella, but if he were the Republican candidate and Jill Stein were the Democratic candidate (and I were an American citizen) I'd vote for Jill Stein. Jill isn't in the Democratic ticket however, Obama sadly isn't on the Republican, and politics in general are far more to the right then I'm comfortable with. Our Conservative Canadian government is to the left of Obama. Given the choice between Obama and Mitt Romney there's no way I'd vote for anyone except Obama, I just couldn't take the chance on Mitt getting in, but if I were a republican supporter (one who was educated but not rich) I might be looking at voting for a third party candidate in hopes of bringing my party back from the brink . . . or if that failed, bolstering another party to perhaps getting onto the podium next election cycle.


Thiago Cardozo wrote:


Yeah, but (hopefully) you don't have the power to act on it and you don't use public money to conduct the assassinations while at the same time refusing to give any concrete explanation of how the names are put into it.

Well you just give me half a chance eh!

Man, somehow I've maneuvered a second thread into a list of people I want dead but don't want to explain (on the boards). *shakes head*

Just you rest assured they're all dicks.


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.

What world do you live in where shades don't matter?

I am having a hard time understanding how you can call us false progressives in the same breath that you say that you understand pragmatism. It's clear that you don't understand pragmatism. Pragmatism cares about shades. It understands that off-white is preferable to carbon-grey if you haven't got any other viable alternatives. You don't get that. You don't understand that compromise - including you compromising on who you choose to support! - is a necessary part of democracy, and is a sign of a mature, well-conditioned mind. You believe that taking a non-productive, symbolic, moral stance is preferable. That is a position divorced from reality, as has been explained many times in this thread.

You can choose to take your symbolic stance, and you can choose to defend it with whatever justification you can convince yourself passes your own muster. But, if that's what you choose to do, you don't get to show up and claim to understand pragmatism. That's not credible.


TheWhiteknife wrote:

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.

Supporting a candidate for President does not mean that you support every action he has taken or every position that he holds. Arguing that it does is false equivocation. Why are you basing your reasoning for your vote on false equivocation?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I, of course, only require that a candidate agree with me on one thing: international proletarian socialist revolution.

It's why I don't vote.

Andoran

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Not voting for murder is bad? Not voting for giving government more unnecessary power over us is bad? Not voting for crony capitalism is bad? Not voting against the last four years if you think it was nearly as criminal as the eight preceding it is bad?

No, Scott, the difference between you and us is we are voting what we feel is right, and you're voting for what you think is somewhat less wrong.

There's a difference. It's called having a conscience. I don't care if my vote goes to someone who has no chance of winning. At least I can look in the mirror every day and KNOW the person I voted for never ordered an extra legal execution or put money in a crony's pocket, or allowed bankers to get away with gambling with people's life savings.

Maybe you can live with your guy's crimes and feel good about voting for him. I can't. There will be another Republican in office some day (and it might be January 20, 2013), and I'm not comfortable with the tools your guy is giving that guy to totally f#&! everyone.

Andoran

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I, of course, only require that a candidate agree with me on one thing: international proletarian socialist revolution.

It's why I don't vote.

I only require that they agree that killing children, even "accidentally", in an extra legal war in a "war against terror" based on complete b#~~+*!% is bad, and that we, as Americans, shouldn't be doing it.

Which is why I've never voted major party in a presidential election.


houstonderek wrote:

Not voting for murder is bad? Not voting for giving government more unnecessary power over us is bad? Not voting for crony capitalism is bad? Not voting against the last four years if you think it was nearly as criminal as the eight preceding it is bad?

No, Scott, the difference between you and us is we are voting what we feel is right, and you're voting for what you think is somewhat less wrong.

There's a difference. It's called having a conscience. I don't care if my vote goes to someone who has no chance of winning. At least I can look in the mirror every day and KNOW the person I voted for never ordered an extra legal execution or put money in a crony's pocket, or allowed bankers to get away with gambling with people's life savings.

Maybe you can live with your guy's crimes and feel good about voting for him. I can't. There will be another Republican in office some day (and it might be January 20, 2013), and I'm not comfortable with the tools your guy is giving that guy to totally f%+% everyone.

HD do you truly think that a Republican is going to do things in office others don't agree with solely because the last guy in office did it? Come on, now.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
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?

Again, he didn't send drones against the paper boy next door. Who he had killed was a treasonous man who dedicated himself to Al Quaida aiding and abetting killers of our soldiers and civilians like the paper boy next door.

If you declare war against our country, if you aid and abet and take up the uniform of soldiers or terrorists who kill our people, then you're a legitimate target, even if your official citizenry is American.

Yeah, I know. I guess you kind of forget that WE started this s&#! back in 1953. We kind of decided that oil was more important than the sovereign rights of a nation to self determination, and continued to make the same decision time and time again. And backed Israel constantly. And put our troops on their holiest of lands to punish a country for invading a country that didn't exist (and was slant drilling oil that didn't belong to them) until Britain decided to royally f&~* up the whole region by making up a bunch of countries (same crap they pulled in Africa, and the same crap they pulled in India when they left) that made no sense.

Maybe, instead of thinking we're right, we should acknowledge that WE created this mess and perhaps we should FIX it instead of continually making it worse so BP and Exxon can make more money.


houstonderek wrote:
thejeff wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
meatrace wrote:
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.
I'm pretty sure neither would have classified kill lists and conduct illegal wars in Yemen and Pakistan.

I still want to know how exactly people think we should handle a situation like Pakistan, where we have a legal war in Afghanistan with the enemy basing itself across the border in areas of Pakistan the government doesn't really control.

Just let them go once the cross the border? Declare war on Pakistan?

The usual answer is we shouldn't be in Afghanistan, which may be true but doesn't really address the legal issue.

We should have not escalated the damn thing. Casualties were near ZERO and Taliban raids nearly non-existent in 2008. With 10,000 troops in the whole damned country. Since Obama took over, a stable situation erupted into an untenable joke, more American solders (by a considerable margin) died than before Obama was in office, and drone strikes are making it EASIER for the Taliban to get support and more fighters.

Sorry, the facts don't agree with your excuses.

Gonna need some serious sources for this.

Andoran

155 U.S. casualties in 2008 (most towards the end of the year as Bush was leaving, and by far the most during his presidency - the average before that was about 60 a year). 2009: 317, 2010: 499, 2011: 418, 2012: 280.

Total U.S. casualties under Bush: 513 dead in seven years*, just under 3,000 wounded.

Total U.S. casualties under Obama: 1514 dead in four years, just over 15,000 wounded.

It's easy to look up.

*Yes, a few in January 2009 are under Bush, didn't feel like doing the math that precisely.

601 to 650 of 1,595 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 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.