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

651 to 700 of 1,595 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | next > last >>
Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.

And a small sampling of a bunch of people not impressed by Obama


This sounds a bit TOO perfect. Again, where is this data coming from? And where are these casualties coming from? Afganistan, Iraq, or both?


houstonderek wrote:
And a small sampling of a bunch of people not impressed by Obama

A portrait of rational objection.

Andoran

Freehold DM wrote:
This sounds a bit TOO perfect. Again, where is this data coming from? And where are these casualties coming from? Afganistan, Iraq, or both?

CNN and PBS mostly. Do a frikkin' Google search. I'm getting tired of having to look s&$@ up for people who SHOULD already know this if they want to have an opinion. No offense. I just do this all day, every day.

And that's all Afghanistan, and doesn't include anything but U.S. casualties. Australia and GB have lost a lot of people too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The funny thing is I'm voting Obama because of my conscience. I can't throw away my vote for someone who I know won't be elected, no matter how much I agree with his/her policies, because I know that's one step closer to Romney being in office. I have the maturity, not to mention sanity, to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Make no mistake, you will be throwing away that vote. It will count for absolutely nothing. A waste. Because we both know either Obama or Romney will be inaugurated in January.

But you'll have your conscience to help you sleep when we go to war with Iran, privatize medicare, enact the Ryan budget, etc etc.


houstonderek wrote:
Not voting for murder is bad?

Really, false equivocation again?

Quote:
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?

And again and again and again?

Quote:
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.

No, I'm voting for what I think is largely right. I don't agree with all of Obama's policies and actions, but I agree with plenty of them. The difference is that I recognize the importance of compromise to democracy, and you are voting with your feelings rather than your head.

Quote:
There's a difference. It's called having a conscience.

So anyone who sizes up the situation, decides that there are only two candidates with any chance of winning, judges them against one another, and decides that one is preferable to the other doesn't have a conscience? That's what your whole argument boils down to? People who actually think about their choices are conscience-less monsters?

Your argument is ridiculous. Fix it.

Quote:
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.

The person you voted for will never do any of those things because the person you voted for never stood any chance of being elected.

Quote:
Maybe you can live with your guy's crimes and feel good about voting for him.

If you think the most important thing about voting is feeling good, you don't understand what civic duty and civic responsibility mean.

Quote:
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.

I don't care how comfortable you are. If you vote for a third party rather than voting for the viable candidate closest to your political alignment, you are doing literally nothing except making it more likely that the guy you hate the most will get elected.

Literally nothing.


houstonderek wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
And a small sampling of a bunch of people not impressed by Obama
A portrait of rational objection.

Yeah, all those links are to "radical" sites, and all the authors are "radicals". *eyeroll*

Sorry, some of us who take freedom, the sanctity of human life, and not being at war, seriously f!!*ing hate Obama.

Edit: and, FYI, nothing in that link is untrue.

Actually I think Meatrace was a bit more sarcastic than I was being in my post.

To be fair, I think the sites listed are a bit extreme. Radical? No. Overboard? Yeah.


Me? Sarcastic?
Pshaw!

Andoran

Jill Stein, but whatever.


houstonderek wrote:
Jill Stein, but whatever.

Well, I'm voting Santa Claus/Easter Bunny!

Grand Lodge

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

And, again, I understand "pragmatism". But I refuse to vote for one more dead child overseas. Sorry.

And every time Obama orders a drone strike against civilians we aren't at war with, appoints a Summers or a Geithner to give oral gratification to Wall Street aristocrats, makes a "hit list", appoints a former Montsano lawyer to the FDA (!!!), passes a "health care" bill that isn't single payer and just hands a chunk of money to Big Pharm and the insurance industry, denies an FOIA request (which his admin has done at an amazing rate for a person who promised "transparency" in his admin), helps DEM mayors crack down on OWS protesters (he did that, sorry), had the DEA raid growers and dispensaries following their state laws (at ten times the rate Bush did) or keeps an AG just as bad as Ashcroft, he is selling us out. Big time.

That isn't "pragmatism", that's betrayal.

That stance is fine. Ignoring the consequences of that stance however, is willful blindness. Ignoring the fact that it IS going to be either Romney or Obama in that chair in January and pretending that the results would be identical is obtuse stubbornness. I never believed that Obama was going to be anything other than a center President, because Leftist Presidents don't get elected in our current culture. In fact I was very sure for the longest time that most Democrats would have chosen a white female over a black male. (and if Clinton hadn't misplayed her cards so badly, they might have)


LazarX wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

And, again, I understand "pragmatism". But I refuse to vote for one more dead child overseas. Sorry.

And every time Obama orders a drone strike against civilians we aren't at war with, appoints a Summers or a Geithner to give oral gratification to Wall Street aristocrats, makes a "hit list", appoints a former Montsano lawyer to the FDA (!!!), passes a "health care" bill that isn't single payer and just hands a chunk of money to Big Pharm and the insurance industry, denies an FOIA request (which his admin has done at an amazing rate for a person who promised "transparency" in his admin), helps DEM mayors crack down on OWS protesters (he did that, sorry), had the DEA raid growers and dispensaries following their state laws (at ten times the rate Bush did) or keeps an AG just as bad as Ashcroft, he is selling us out. Big time.

That isn't "pragmatism", that's betrayal.

That stance is fine. Ignoring the consequences of that stance however, is willful blindness. Ignoring the fact that it IS going to be either Romney or Obama in that chair in January and pretending that the results would be identical is obtuse stubbornness. I never believed that Obama was going to be anything other than a center President, because Leftist Presidents don't get elected in our current culture. In fact I was very sure for the longest time that most Democrats would have chosen a white female over a black male. (and if Clinton hadn't misplayed her cards so badly, they might have)

Hnn. Unsure on that one.

Cheliax

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

Personaly I would be weary of voting third party out of concience due to what happend here in the Uk during the last general election. Long story short several of my friends who would never vote Tory but in good concience could not vote Labour party decided insted to vote for Liberal democrats..

Sadly what ended up happening is the Tories made a coalition with them and the Lib Dems sold out meaning my friends ended up voting for Tory in all but name.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
LazarX wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

And, again, I understand "pragmatism". But I refuse to vote for one more dead child overseas. Sorry.

And every time Obama orders a drone strike against civilians we aren't at war with, appoints a Summers or a Geithner to give oral gratification to Wall Street aristocrats, makes a "hit list", appoints a former Montsano lawyer to the FDA (!!!), passes a "health care" bill that isn't single payer and just hands a chunk of money to Big Pharm and the insurance industry, denies an FOIA request (which his admin has done at an amazing rate for a person who promised "transparency" in his admin), helps DEM mayors crack down on OWS protesters (he did that, sorry), had the DEA raid growers and dispensaries following their state laws (at ten times the rate Bush did) or keeps an AG just as bad as Ashcroft, he is selling us out. Big time.

That isn't "pragmatism", that's betrayal.

That stance is fine. Ignoring the consequences of that stance however, is willful blindness. Ignoring the fact that it IS going to be either Romney or Obama in that chair in January and pretending that the results would be identical is obtuse stubbornness. I never believed that Obama was going to be anything other than a center President, because Leftist Presidents don't get elected in our current culture. In fact I was very sure for the longest time that most Democrats would have chosen a white female over a black male. (and if Clinton hadn't misplayed her cards so badly, they might have)
Hnn. Unsure on that one.

Clinton based much of her strategy and blew most of her energy on trying for an early knockout. Problem was Obama refused to keel over and die and she had blown much of her fundraising strategy on getting an early win the rest of her campaign never really covered fron the financial fatigue that set in as a result of her misstep. Also Obama developed new methods of micro fundraising that literally broke new ground.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Kevin Mack wrote:

Personaly I would be weary of voting third party out of concience due to what happend here in the Uk during the last general election. Long story short several of my friends who would never vote Tory but in good concience could not vote Labour party decided insted to vote for Liberal democrats..

Sadly what ended up happening is the Tories made a coalition with them and the Lib Dems sold out meaning my friends ended up voting for Tory in all but name.

You folks have a parliamentary democracy where coalitions HAVE to be built for government actually to be run save in relatively uncommon cases.

Ours is a two party duopoly where nowadays instead of coalition, the party in the majority curb stomps the one in minority which in recent years leads to increasing dysfunction.


Kevin Mack wrote:

Personaly I would be weary of voting third party out of concience due to what happend here in the Uk during the last general election. Long story short several of my friends who would never vote Tory but in good concience could not vote Labour party decided insted to vote for Liberal democrats..

Sadly what ended up happening is the Tories made a coalition with them and the Lib Dems sold out meaning my friends ended up voting for Tory in all but name.

Don't worry. That won't happen in the US.

There's no such thing as a coalition government. The major parties don't need the third parties.

Technically, it could come up in Congress. A third party or Independent Congresscritter could be the vote that decided control of the House or Senate.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:

Personaly I would be weary of voting third party out of concience due to what happend here in the Uk during the last general election. Long story short several of my friends who would never vote Tory but in good concience could not vote Labour party decided insted to vote for Liberal democrats..

Sadly what ended up happening is the Tories made a coalition with them and the Lib Dems sold out meaning my friends ended up voting for Tory in all but name.

You folks have a parliamentary democracy where coalitions HAVE to be built for government actually to be run save in relatively uncommon cases.

Ours is a two party duopoly where nowadays instead of coalition, the party in the majority curb stomps the one in minority which in recent years leads to increasing dysfunction.

To be fair coalitions in the British parliment are actually pretty rare In recent history(The last one before the current being the one in the 40's and that was a war based coalition goverment)


LazarX wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
LazarX wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

And, again, I understand "pragmatism". But I refuse to vote for one more dead child overseas. Sorry.

And every time Obama orders a drone strike against civilians we aren't at war with, appoints a Summers or a Geithner to give oral gratification to Wall Street aristocrats, makes a "hit list", appoints a former Montsano lawyer to the FDA (!!!), passes a "health care" bill that isn't single payer and just hands a chunk of money to Big Pharm and the insurance industry, denies an FOIA request (which his admin has done at an amazing rate for a person who promised "transparency" in his admin), helps DEM mayors crack down on OWS protesters (he did that, sorry), had the DEA raid growers and dispensaries following their state laws (at ten times the rate Bush did) or keeps an AG just as bad as Ashcroft, he is selling us out. Big time.

That isn't "pragmatism", that's betrayal.

That stance is fine. Ignoring the consequences of that stance however, is willful blindness. Ignoring the fact that it IS going to be either Romney or Obama in that chair in January and pretending that the results would be identical is obtuse stubbornness. I never believed that Obama was going to be anything other than a center President, because Leftist Presidents don't get elected in our current culture. In fact I was very sure for the longest time that most Democrats would have chosen a white female over a black male. (and if Clinton hadn't misplayed her cards so badly, they might have)
Hnn. Unsure on that one.
Clinton based much of her strategy and blew most of her energy on trying for an early knockout. Problem was Obama refused to keel over and die and she had blown much of her fundraising strategy on getting an early win the rest of her campaign never really covered fron the financial fatigue that set in as a result of her misstep. Also Obama developed new methods of micro fundraising that literally broke new ground.

Another reason why I like the man. Still does not excuse NDAA or some of the other things he's done that I don't agree with.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
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

Hazy profile? I take it that wearing the uniform of Al Qaeda, wielding the arms of Al Qaeda, attending their camps and taking an actual position in Al Qaeda still defines it as a "hazy profile"?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:
And a small sampling of a bunch of people not impressed by Obama

Fact of the matter is as long as the United States maintains it's electoral system which doesn't show any signs of change, if you vote for anyone other than Obama, it's essentially a vote for Romney. There is no reasonable debate on this essential fact.

If that is an acceptable outcome to you, then go for it. But don't duck on your part of the responsibility in putting a Tea Party flapjack in office.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:

Personaly I would be weary of voting third party out of concience due to what happend here in the Uk during the last general election. Long story short several of my friends who would never vote Tory but in good concience could not vote Labour party decided insted to vote for Liberal democrats..

Sadly what ended up happening is the Tories made a coalition with them and the Lib Dems sold out meaning my friends ended up voting for Tory in all but name.

Don't worry. That won't happen in the US.

There's no such thing as a coalition government. The major parties don't need the third parties.

Technically, it could come up in Congress. A third party or Independent Congresscritter could be the vote that decided control of the House or Senate.

Yeah it seems the American political system is caught in some sort of loop where in order for a 3rd party to have a chance would require a change to the entire political system but the only ones that would want to impliment that are the 3rd parties.


LazarX wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
And a small sampling of a bunch of people not impressed by Obama

Fact of the matter is as long as the United States maintains it's electoral system which doesn't show any signs of change, if you vote for anyone other than Obama, it's essentially a vote for Romney. There is no reasonable debate on this essential fact.

If that is an acceptable outcome to you, then go for it. But don't duck on your part of the responsibility in putting a Tea Party flapjack in office.

Technically it's a half vote for Romney. 2 people not voting has the same effect as one voting for Romney.


LazarX wrote:
Hazy profile? I take it that wearing the uniform of Al Qaeda, wielding the arms of Al Qaeda, attending their camps and taking an actual position in Al Qaeda still defines it as a "hazy profile"?

I don't think Al Qaeda actually has uniforms, but I know what you mean.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:
No, you think you're liberals. but vote for moderate conservative values. That's worse than thinking you were abducted by aliens, imo.

I reject that label. "Liberal" and "Conservative" are tags useful only for the ignorantly simplistic, or the wilful dividers.


45 new posts?!?

Things are hoppin' in the politroll threads!

I'll be back after I check out the tunes threads...


LazarX wrote:


And again when your protest vote puts Romney in office you will have in effect voted for all of that above. You'll also have in effect voted for a man who's fronting for the extreme anti-abortionists, will work to reverse the rights of those few legally married LGBT couples, privatise Social Security, and all the rest. In your own way you and those authors are the EXACT mirror of the Tea Party purist fanatics insisting on a litmus test drawn from the most extreme positions.

Because like it or lump it, your little protest counts for naught.

It all rides on who gets the electoral college and your little 5 and dime third parties have absolutely no chance of getting a single state, not even Rhode Island.

Except the Tea Party has been as successful as it has by working within the Republican party. They didn't get the Presidential nominee they wanted, though they did a liar who'll bend to the pressure they can put on him. They did get a bunch of ideological idiots elected to Congress.

They didn't form their own party and run against Republicans in general elections. Because that doesn't work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
And a small sampling of a bunch of people not impressed by Obama
A portrait of rational objection.

Yeah, all those links are to "radical" sites, and all the authors are "radicals". *eyeroll*

Sorry, some of us who take freedom, the sanctity of human life, and not being at war, seriously f&**ing hate Obama.

Edit: and, FYI, nothing in that link is untrue.

And again when your protest vote puts Romney in office you will have in effect voted for all of that above. You'll also have in effect voted for a man who's fronting for the extreme anti-abortionists, will work to reverse the rights of those few legally married LGBT couples, privatise Social Security, and all the rest. In your own way you and those authors are the EXACT mirror of the Tea Party purist fanatics insisting on a litmus test drawn from the most extreme positions.

Because like it or lump it, your little protest counts for naught.

It all rides on who gets the electoral college and your little 5 and dime third parties have absolutely no chance of getting a single state, not even Rhode Island.

Lazar, I must disagree. HD, the socialist goblin, and everyone posting in this thread in this country has a right to vote for whom they will. HD is voting with his conscience, as am I, as are you, as is Anklebiter by not voting. I'm glad we have the opportunity to do so here, as the alternative does not bear thinking about. I don't agree with either HD or Citizen Anklebiter in this thread, but they have a right to opine, even as I have a right to disagree, courteously. I also have the right to take my disagreement to the polling booth and express my feelings in another way privately. Regardless of how I feel, it takes people like these two to make the change in the world today- people who are willing to take a stand and state their beliefs clearly and honestly without fear of criticism. Who knows. Maybe they'll succeed. That said, as always, one should be careful for what they wish for.


Freehold DM wrote:
]Lazar, I must disagree. HD, the socialist goblin, and everyone posting in this thread in this country has a right to vote for whom they will. HD is voting with his conscience, as am I, as are you, as is Anklebiter by not voting. I'm glad we have the opportunity to do so here, as the alternative does not bear thinking about. I don't agree with either HD or Citizen Anklebiter in this thread, but they have a right to opine, even as I have a right to disagree, courteously. I also have the right to take my disagreement to the polling booth and express my feelings in another way privately. Regardless of how I feel, it takes people like these two to make the change in the world today- people who are willing to take a stand and state their beliefs clearly and honestly without fear...

Of course they have the right. No one is suggesting they should be forced to vote or forced to vote for my candidate. No one is even suggesting they don't have the right to say whatever they want in this forum, within Paizo's limits of course.

Equally, we have the right to point out the flaws in their approach.


Samnell wrote:
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.

Seriously, though, seeing as how the election was stolen by the Republicans, your voting Gore would have accomplished nothing either.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
Lazar, I must disagree. HD, the socialist goblin, and everyone posting in this thread in this country has a right to vote for whom they will. HD is voting with his conscience, as am I, as are you, as is Anklebiter by not voting. I'm glad we have the opportunity to do so here, as the alternative does not bear thinking about. I don't agree with either HD or Citizen Anklebiter in this thread, but they have a right to opine, even as I have a right to disagree, courteously. I also have the right to take my disagreement to the polling booth and express my feelings in another way privately. Regardless of how I feel, it takes people like these two to make the change in the world today- people who are willing to take a stand and state their beliefs clearly and honestly without fear of criticism. Who knows. Maybe they'll succeed. That said, as always, one should be careful for what they wish for.

And again I've said that you and the rest DO indeed have that right and privilege. But if the sole extent of your activism is to throw away a vote for a third party candidate for a Presidential election, it's not only willful blindness, it's an idiotic approach to try to short circuit grass roots change by trying for the gold ring right at the start. What you (and I mean the collective "you", not you personally) should be doing is working at the grassroots local level, but that will never happen because you folks blow it in two major areas.

1. Herding progressives together is light trying to put a bunch of cats in a bag, it always falls apart due to turf wars, ego trips, and a general unwillingness to unite around common causes.

2. The left has continually allowed the right to capture and build their flag around the core values that mainstream America holds dear. They insist on building on logic or rhetoric of victimisation, where as the right has succeeded in marketing themselves as running on morals and "responsibility". The left allowed itself to be cast as the party of "anyone but White America" in their conduct, causes, and actions, and have yet to learn from that fatal mistake.

So your aims and ideals are noble and I'm sympathetic and advocate quite a few of them. But I also live in the real world and know what can happen and what are the possible real choices next Tuesday, and those are grounded in realities as solid as Newton's Law of Gravitation.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Samnell wrote:
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.
Seriously, though, seeing as how the election was stolen by the Republicans, your voting Gore would have accomplished nothing either.

Well, depending on where you were and how many others did the same, you might have kept if from being close enough to steal.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Samnell wrote:
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.
Seriously, though, seeing as how the election was stolen by the Republicans, your voting Gore would have accomplished nothing either.
Well, depending on where you were and how many others did the same, you might have kept if from being close enough to steal.

I could excuse someone voting for Nader. I did so twice myself. Because at the very least he had at least the appearance of being a viable third party candidate. I also of course am guilty of willfully ignoring the fact that Republicans contributed to his campaign with the express idea to siphon votes away from Gore. This was also before certain Supreme Court decisions basically took all restraints on private contributions to campaigns.

But Johnson and the rest don't even have the appearance of being a real candidacy. In this venue, if you're not a big boy with big money pants, not even Nader could be a real candidate.

651 to 700 of 1,595 << first < prev | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 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.