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

801 to 850 of 1,595 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

Krensky wrote:

Honestly, the Tea Party was Astroturf from almost the get go. The GOP lost control of them fora while though as people who didn't know most of what the GOP says isn't what they really care about got elected.

Not the first time though Bush OK had to have the Two Santa Claus scheme explained to him after his first State of the Union speech.

I thought that this article about Occupy was interesting.

If you get bored with the Marxist sectarianism, jump down to the last section, "Break with the Bourgeoisie!"

EDIT: The stuff about siphoning off votes for the Democrats is totally true in my experience.

Occupy New Hampshire (no rapes that I am aware of, thank you, although one woman was busted for recruiting underage girls into prostitution), of course, was a heavily polarized organization between the extreme right (Ron Paul supporters and Free State Project members) and the liberal left.

They finally split earlier this year, and, since then, the "left" wing has disappeared up the ass of the Obama campaign.

Spoiler:
There is a couple here who are trying to set up a NH branch of the Industrial Workers of the World. So, for a while there, many of the lefties started sporting Black Cats and CNT-FAI flags. But then the leader was offered an organizing position with the AFL-CIO and now he is "limited as to what he can do in New Hampshire", i.e., he's a paid stooge of the Democrats.

They had their first public meeting last weekend, and me and my comrades attended in a spirit of non-sectarian-build-the-leftdom and to build for our anti-Obama, anti-war rally. "Oh, sure, we'll be there" they said, but come the day, they never showed. Probably too busy getting out the vote for Obomba. F%#%in' stooges.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Politicians did not have to pay their own way through school nor work two full-time jobs / three or four part-time jobs just to put food on the table, keep a roof over their heads and otherwise scrape by during the inevitable economic recessions.

President Barack Obama covered his own college (and law school!) education through scholarships, work, and student loans, the latter of which he was unable to pay off until a decade after he graduated.

Vice President Joe Biden was born into a low-income family, and grew up living with his grandparents because his father was unable to find work. He has never been wealthy, and was consistently ranked as one of the poorest members of the Senate, with a total net worth as low as $59,000. When he was 30, a month after he was elected to the Senate, he lost his wife and infant daughter in an automobile accident. He commuted via Amtrak for his entire Senate career so that he could be home with his sons while they were growing up.

You do not know politicians anywhere near as well as you think you do. You have a fashionably cynical view of politicians that does not match reality.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I wondered about that, considering the number of veterans among out elected officials.


Obama personally pepper sprays Portland anti-austerity protestors with anti-rape slogans on their signs

Well, I guess that's why he didn't make it to New Hampshire.

Activist Porn


Voting Obama.

Gay marriage is honestly the most important thing to me in this election. Everything else is a distant second.

My fiance is in the country on a student visa. When it wears up in just a couple of years he could be sent home. Even if we get married in a state where it is legal, US immigration law doesn't currently grant legal status to same-sex couples (though recently deportations have been suspended for many of those in long-term same-sex partnerships, legal status would be excellent for thing like employment).

Decisions on gay marriage will have an immediate, drastic, and lasting effect on my life (whether I'll be seperated from my future husband or not); so while I'm pretty sure gay marriage is coming eventually whether religious conservatives like it or not, I don't really have the luxury of waiting through a presidency that will not work toward gay rights (or even actively against them). While President Obama may not work toward recognizing gay marriage on a federal level, I believe he will work toward gay rights and at the very least not throw effort toward preventing them on a national level, and that is far more than I can say for Romney, and he is my only other choice this year.

That I agree with, not everything, but quite a bit of what Obama has done is just a bonus. But I live in a red state whose electoral votes are assuredly going for Romney this year, so unfortunately my vote has little meaning. The last 4 years could have gone a little better, sure, but they went well enough for me, and could have gone a whole lot worse, so I'm more than willing to have 4 more years of Obama. I'll vote for and support an Obama presidency. It may not mean much do to my location, but, yeah, I'll do it.


houstonderek wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
Hey when all else fails just vote for Roseanne Bar lol...
I chat with her "running mate" (neither take it seriously) almost daily. Very cool lady.

Cool man.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Obama personally pepper sprays Portland anti-austerity protestors with anti-rape slogans on their signs

Well, I guess that's why he didn't make it to New Hampshire.

Activist Porn

Yeah, Obama sure sounds like a nice guy. /Sarcasm


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

The article that started it all.

Obama was in town last week (I think he's in town today, too, but I'm busy) and when I peddled my socialist newspaper I didn't get any takers. That's fine, of course, I'm used to getting glassy-eyed stares from mouth-breathers.

But there was an army of vendors (all of whom were black, btw, which is only weird because I didn't realize there were that many black people in New Hampshire) peddling t-shirts and what not and the #1 seller, as far as I could tell, was an "Obama Got Osama!" button.

And there I was trying to build a rally to

"Protest Obama's Wars--Down with Imperialist Interventions and Occupations--All US/UN/NATO Troops Out Now!"

EDIT: Oh yeah, it was also funny, because we are friendly with these dudes called NH Peace Action, which are basically 2 dozen or so retirees who do weekly vigils in Nashua against the wars of American imperialism. One of them is a quiet old dude, who, I guess, in his youth was a member of the Young Socialist Alliance. Anyway, in building for our anti-war rally, we drove up to poster Manchester and we ran into the same dudes, but this time, he had a clothes pin on his nose and was holding an "Obama 2012" sign. "You f!%&ing traitor!" we yelled at him, jocularly, and he got real defensive. Hee hee!

Vive le Galt!

As ever, I'm glad you match real-world individual action to your rhetoric online.


houstonderek wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
I voted Romney...;-}

Congratulations!

When we've turned into a Chinese-Blaxican Muslim Socialist Communist Homosexual Atheist Dictatorship four years from now, you have earned the right to say, "I told you so!"

If I thought Obama could actually do that, I'd vote for him.

This..made me laugh more than it should have.


Scott Betts wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
Politicians did not have to pay their own way through school nor work two full-time jobs / three or four part-time jobs just to put food on the table, keep a roof over their heads and otherwise scrape by during the inevitable economic recessions.

President Barack Obama covered his own college (and law school!) education through scholarships, work, and student loans, the latter of which he was unable to pay off until a decade after he graduated.

Vice President Joe Biden was born into a low-income family, and grew up living with his grandparents because his father was unable to find work. He has never been wealthy, and was consistently ranked as one of the poorest members of the Senate, with a total net worth as low as $59,000. When he was 30, a month after he was elected to the Senate, he lost his wife and infant daughter in an automobile accident. He commuted via Amtrak for his entire Senate career so that he could be home with his sons while they were growing up.

You do not know politicians anywhere near as well as you think you do. You have a fashionably cynical view of politicians that does not match reality.

1% or less as exceptions from the, what, 800 or so between Congresscritters, Senators and the President/VP ?

Yeah, I'm pretty comfortable with my 98-99% assessment of the rest of them that is reality.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Show me a politician that knows what it means to actually be a normal citizen, you will be showing me some one who is likely to get my vote.

I would suggest your list isn't indicative of most normal citizens. Surely there are many normal citizens that have experienced some or all of those, but there are probably a lot more that haven't experienced any, and are also not super rich nor any less "normal".

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
meatrace wrote:
If no one knows, then you don't know. And if you don't know then asserting that you or I might be the target of such strikes is assinine.
There's no need to assert that. I need only to assert the immorality and indefensibility of establishing secret criteria for murdering people.

The point of war is that you kill people. Especially when those people are looking to kill you or your people. Perhaps you think that Al Qaeda or the Taliban deserve some sort of pass on their activities?


Turin the Mad wrote:
1% or less as exceptions from the, what, 800 or so between Congresscritters, Senators and the President/VP ?

Those aren't "exceptions". Those are the President and Vice President of the United States. Those are the two most powerful politicians in the entire country, and despite all their power, they still come from humble backgrounds and have never lost touch with that.

I cited them because they're the President and Vice President. I could just as easily go through a list of Representatives, Senators, and Governors who also have experienced hardship - probably far more hardship than you have, Oh High Judge. But if the two most prominent politicians in the nation don't fit your half-baked mold, why would you continue to believe that all the others do, especially since you very obviously have not examined the back stories of politicians to anything resembling a sufficient degree?

Your fashionable cynicism is crap, and you should feel bad for hopping on the bandwagon.

Quote:
Yeah, I'm pretty comfortable with my 98-99% assessment of the rest of them that is reality.

Why? Because it makes you feel better about hating things you have no real grasp of?

Grow up.

Or go ahead, and double down on your cynical theory. I'd be happy to tear it apart some more.


LazarX wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
meatrace wrote:
If no one knows, then you don't know. And if you don't know then asserting that you or I might be the target of such strikes is assinine.
There's no need to assert that. I need only to assert the immorality and indefensibility of establishing secret criteria for murdering people.
The point of war is that you kill people. Especially when those people are looking to kill you or your people. Perhaps you think that Al Qaeda or the Taliban deserve some sort of pass on their activities?

What about the other 98%?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"Any time you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that party can't keep the promises that it made to you during election time, and you're dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that political party, you're not only a chump but you're a traitor to your race."

--Malcolm X, April 12, 1964

Malcolm wasn't terribly impressed with the Civil Rights Act, btw.


Freehold DM wrote:
As ever, I'm glad you match real-world individual action to your rhetoric online.

Vive le Galt!

(Shameless bump)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
meatrace wrote:
If no one knows, then you don't know. And if you don't know then asserting that you or I might be the target of such strikes is assinine.
There's no need to assert that. I need only to assert the immorality and indefensibility of establishing secret criteria for murdering people.
The point of war is that you kill people. Especially when those people are looking to kill you or your people. Perhaps you think that Al Qaeda or the Taliban deserve some sort of pass on their activities?

First of all this "War on Terror" stuff is absurd. You make war against nations and you prosecute individuals and gangs. But let's forget that for a while and go with the idea that you're at "war" against terror, same as "war" on drugs. I'll concede you even that, for the absurdity of these "signature strikes" does not depend on this discussion.

No, that is not what I think. What I think is that if your criteria for killing people is secret, you can kill whoever you like without need for consequences or review. At this point you basically have to blindly trust the guy who is wielding that power. And EVEN if you do, which I guess is a stupid stance to take, someone else will get that same power eventually. It's the secrecy and the falseness in play here. Have you actually seen how the WH is counting "militants" killed as in opposition to civilians? And you agree with that crap?

And what I don't want is that at some point in the future, other countries decide they can play the same game and start sending drones to kill "terrorists" in the middle of civilian populations.


Scott Betts wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:

Your argument stands only if one of the candidates nudges things towards a positive end even if slightly, while the other doesn't. In the case where both lead to a net negative for society, with the difference being in the relative declivity of the fall, you are wrong, unless your final goal is just to slow the descent for as long as you can.

Of course, it may not be clear that Obama fits in the second scenario. That is why we're discussing. Some of us feel that Obama does amount to a net loss for society, as does Romney. Of course, enshrining the two-party system once more does not help leaving this. If candidates start losing the run for 3rd parties repeatedly, they might learn that their platforms do not consist of temporary or non-important issues.
As I've explained, I do feel that Obama has moved us in a net positive direction - certainly from where we were four years ago - and will continue to do so in his second term. Furthermore, the argument still holds up even if both candidates are a net negative, as long as one of them is significantly less of a net negative than the other. Vote presently for the better of the two candidates, and, if you feel like both were terrible, fight for election reform in the intervening four years. That's the only way any change will happen, and it's one hell of an uphill fight.

I understand that you feel that in relation to Obama, Scott. What I'm trying to point out to you is that if, for some people, Obama is really terrible and represents only a slight difference from Romney in what matters to them, they might be willing to try what they can to get a long term gain. They might be willing, for instance, to accept a small increase of "worse" in the next years in order to try once again to educate the democratic party about what is important to them, while at the same time working for election reform (something which is also blocked by the core of the democratic party, by the way).

Of course you might vehemently disagree that Romney and Obama are so near one another, and we might be wrong, after all. That is why this discussion is important. But you have to understand that, for people who don't see the gains of re-electing Obama to be as great as they seem to you, voting third party is a legitimate choice. This means, the focus should be on convincing people Obama is not so bad as they think instead of trying to point out that "your strategy sucks".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
I understand that you feel that in relation to Obama, Scott. What I'm trying to point out to you is that if, for some people, Obama is really terrible and represents only a slight difference from Romney in what matters to them,

And that's the central disagreement - the idea that Obama and Romney are anywhere near each other in terms of their ability to effectively govern the country is a falsehood. Those who believe that to be the case are mistaken, and using that mistaken belief to justify making what amounts to a potentially very harmful decision only compounds that mistake.

So yes, it would be a legitimate choice if you were right about Romney and Obama being roughly interchangeable. But they're not roughly interchangeable, at all. Voting third-party is, therefore, to be approached with caution and an understanding of its potential (and real historical) consequences.

A look at my posts on the matter will reveal that I've done quite a lot of trying to convince people that Obama and Romney are not functionally equivalent, and furthermore that politicians and major political parties are not all functionally equivalent.


But you do understand that to many who have specific concerns that they elevate higher than others, they are roughly interchangeable, correct?

Like foreign policy, executive over-reach, and civil liberties.

As bad as President Obama has been on these issues, the opposition party should be able to absolutely hammer him on these issues, but instead (most) republicans decided to double down on the totalanarianism and agree for the most part. (I think anyways. Ol Mittens has held every position on just about everything now.) So third party it is for me.

Full disclosure: Sample ballot in today's newspaper. Looks like its a mostly (L) vote for me, with one R and one D, downticket. Strangely enough, the D vote has alot of the local tea party's vote, and local democrats are supporting the incumbent republican.


LazarX wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
meatrace wrote:
If no one knows, then you don't know. And if you don't know then asserting that you or I might be the target of such strikes is assinine.
There's no need to assert that. I need only to assert the immorality and indefensibility of establishing secret criteria for murdering people.
The point of war is that you kill people. Especially when those people are looking to kill you or your people. Perhaps you think that Al Qaeda or the Taliban deserve some sort of pass on their activities?

I have not seen anyone deny that the point of war is to kill people. Perhaps you think every other war was conducted in absolute secrecy? They werent. Now you can be killed for "supporting" an "associated group". What do those mean? If you are going to answer that question, let me pre-emptively call you a liar. Signature strikes are the worst of the bunch. You could* be killed simply for having weapons and/or traveling in a group because Al-quaida, the Taliban, and "associated groups" carry weapons and/or travel in groups. But the kicker is who WOULDNT carry weapons and/or travel in groups in areas where those groups are? You'd be crazy not to, or else those groups will attack you. But if you do, we will bomb you!

* I think. I, like you, dont really know what the criteria is.


TheWhiteknife wrote:


I have not seen anyone deny that the point of war is to kill people. Perhaps you think every other war was conducted in absolute secrecy? They werent. Now you can be killed for "supporting" an "associated group". What do those mean? If you are going to answer that question, let me pre-emptively call you a liar. Signature strikes are the worst of the bunch. You could* be killed simply for having weapons and/or traveling in a group because Al-quaida, the Taliban, and "associated groups" carry weapons and/or travel in groups. But the kicker is who WOULDNT carry weapons and/or travel in groups in areas where those groups are? You'd be crazy not to, or else those groups will attack you. But if you do, we will bomb you!
* I think. I, like you, dont really know what the criteria is.

You, and those who try to give those hurt medical aid, or go to your funeral. There is that as well.

Andoran

I have no idea about Jill Stein's family's wealth, don't really care to be honest. Still voting for her.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

"Any time you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that party can't keep the promises that it made to you during election time, and you're dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that political party, you're not only a chump but you're a traitor to your race."

--Malcolm X, April 12, 1964

Malcolm wasn't terribly impressed with the Civil Rights Act, btw.

Well, Malocolm had a brain. He wasn't a Democrat or a Republican.


houstonderek wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

"Any time you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that party can't keep the promises that it made to you during election time, and you're dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that political party, you're not only a chump but you're a traitor to your race."

--Malcolm X, April 12, 1964

Malcolm wasn't terribly impressed with the Civil Rights Act, btw.

Well, Malocolm had a brain. He wasn't a Democrat or a Republican.

As far as racial issues go, both parties were different animals back then. Both were racist. The Democratic party in the south was still dominated by Dixiecrats, who mostly either lost or shifted to the Republican party in the wake of LBJ's Civil Rights laws and Nixon's Southern Strategy.

The modern preference of blacks for the Democratic party and racists for the Republican party dates to then.


I don't think Malcom's opinion would have changed that much, tbh.

Link to the speech Anklebiter quoted.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

How many different ways are there to say "Everyone is a sucker -- except me." ?


In this thread alone? :)

EDIT: Been a long time since I had listened to any of his speeches, and forgotten what a powerful orator Malcom was. Thanks for the reminder Ankelbiter.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

"Any time you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that party can't keep the promises that it made to you during election time, and you're dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that political party, you're not only a chump but you're a traitor to your race."

--Malcolm X, April 12, 1964

Malcolm wasn't terribly impressed with the Civil Rights Act, btw.

Of course he wasn't impressed. Radicals generally don't have much appreciation for the middle road, although they often play a part in breaking a lot of ice.

I believe that Malcom X was an important voice in the civil rights struggle and that he was right in a lot of things he said, and reversed himself on some major things when he matured as a spiritual person.

That said, it does not reduce the importance and contribution of more moderate figures like Martin Luther King.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TheWhiteknife wrote:
I have not seen anyone deny that the point of war is to kill people. Perhaps you think every other war was conducted in absolute secrecy? They werent. Now you can be killed for "supporting" an "associated group". What do those mean? If you are going to answer that question, let me pre-emptively call you a liar. Signature strikes are the worst of the bunch. You could* be killed simply for having weapons and/or traveling in a group because Al-quaida, the Taliban, and "associated groups" carry weapons and/or travel in groups. But the kicker is who WOULDNT carry weapons and/or travel in groups in areas where those groups are? You'd be crazy not to, or else those groups will attack you. But if you do, we will bomb you!

You don't judge modern conflicts in the measure of the old. There aren't any neat borders, and our enemies frequently take shelter amidst innocents. I will definitely prefer a selective strike over carpet bombing a town full of noncombatants to get at the people we need to get at.

The signature case of this whole thread is about the killing of a man who was an active traitor to this country, who was participating in activities dedicated to killing our soldiers and our civilians. What part of treason in a martial exercise do you not get in this case? The advocates of this shining example of innocent American citizenry have been raising up strawmen fears by trying to extend the application of this principle to a universal threat. It has not been a credible argument,nor even a rational one.

Andoran

Scott Betts wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
I understand that you feel that in relation to Obama, Scott. What I'm trying to point out to you is that if, for some people, Obama is really terrible and represents only a slight difference from Romney in what matters to them,

And that's the central disagreement - the idea that Obama and Romney are anywhere near each other in terms of their ability to effectively govern the country is a falsehood. Those who believe that to be the case are mistaken, and using that mistaken belief to justify making what amounts to a potentially very harmful decision only compounds that mistake.

So yes, it would be a legitimate choice if you were right about Romney and Obama being roughly interchangeable. But they're not roughly interchangeable, at all. Voting third-party is, therefore, to be approached with caution and an understanding of its potential (and real historical) consequences.

A look at my posts on the matter will reveal that I've done quite a lot of trying to convince people that Obama and Romney are not functionally equivalent, and furthermore that politicians and major political parties are not all functionally equivalent.

No, your posts just verify that you are a blathering fool who tries to make "fact" something that is quite subjective. It's kind of your thing. It's just a lot more annoying when you do it here rather than your usual forum stomping ground.

Funny, Romney has never been president, he hasn't made any presidential mistakes or trodden on the bill of rights yet. Obama has, and is responsible for having a kill list. Funny, Gitmo exists because Bush CAPTURED people, Obama solved that problem by just killing them.


bugleyman wrote:

Here is what I think we should do -- Expel money from politics.

Step 1: Fund education.

Step 2: Forbid former office holders from lobbying for twice their term in office or ten years, whichever is greater. Violation == mandatory prison.

Step 3: Fund education.

Step 4: Toss Citizens United. Smack John Roberts for not understanding exactly what he was getting us into.

Step 5: Make all elections publicly (and only publicly) funded affairs, with budgets small enough to preclude TV ad buys. PBS can grant fixed blocks of time to each candidate.

Step 6: Fund education.

You don't think Roberts understood exactly what he was doing?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hitdice wrote:
You don't think Roberts understood exactly what he was doing?

I don't think he really understood the extent to which so-called "superPACs" would outspend even the campaigns.

If he did, he should have held out for more than 30 pieces of silver.


LazarX wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
I have not seen anyone deny that the point of war is to kill people. Perhaps you think every other war was conducted in absolute secrecy? They werent. Now you can be killed for "supporting" an "associated group". What do those mean? If you are going to answer that question, let me pre-emptively call you a liar. Signature strikes are the worst of the bunch. You could* be killed simply for having weapons and/or traveling in a group because Al-quaida, the Taliban, and "associated groups" carry weapons and/or travel in groups. But the kicker is who WOULDNT carry weapons and/or travel in groups in areas where those groups are? You'd be crazy not to, or else those groups will attack you. But if you do, we will bomb you!

You don't judge modern conflicts in the measure of the old. There aren't any neat borders, and our enemies frequently take shelter amidst innocents. I will definitely prefer a selective strike over carpet bombing a town full of noncombatants to get at the people we need to get at.

The signature case of this whole thread is about the killing of a man who was an active traitor to this country, who was participating in activities dedicated to killing our soldiers and our civilians. What part of treason in a martial exercise do you not get in this case? The advocates of this shining example of innocent American citizenry have been raising up strawmen fears by trying to extend the application of this principle to a universal threat. It has not been a credible argument,nor even a rational one.

Do you know what a signature strike is?

Edit-as for the bit about Anwar al-Alaki, prove it. Our very own Comrade Anklebiter actively talks about killing US citizens via worker's revolutions. Should he be killed?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

America is a funny place when people voting to the left of the spectrum start excusing behavior they would have crucified the previous guy for.

Funny how partisan politics makes hypocrites of people.

Well, unless LazarX was always a lover of the police state and a "patriot" who thinks America is a wonderful world citizen that would never do anything illegal or wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

I don't think Malcom's opinion would have changed that much, tbh.

Link to the speech Anklebiter quoted.

Ooh, thank you!

Another funny thing: a leitmotif running throughout the collection is Malcolm denouncing some new "anti-Negro, no-knock, stop-and-frisk" law.

Plus ca change...


TheWhiteknife wrote:


Edit-as for the bit about Anwar al-Alaki, prove it. Our very own Comrade Anklebiter actively talks about killing US citizens via worker's revolutions. Should he be killed?

And we're back here again.

If he was a threat, he could be arrested and brought to trial because he's in an area that the US controls.

You can't do the same to people in the rebel held areas of Yemen because not even the Yemeni government has control over them. If they could just arrest them, they would.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Secret arrests and murders in the name of the "War on Terror" are completely unacceptable. I am bitterly disappointed in Barack Obama for not bringing those to a halt.

The fact remains, however, that either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama will be elected tomorrow. Faced with that choice, I voted for Obama.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Funny. Bush had Special Forces capture all kinds of people from Yemen, the Sudan, Pakistan, etc.

Guess the Green Berets and SEALS somehow got soft and less well trained since '09 and we decided all the heavy lifting should be done by someone who honed their technique playing Halo.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
houstonderek wrote:

America is a funny place when people voting to the left of the spectrum start excusing behavior they would have crucified the previous guy for.

Funny how partisan politics makes hypocrites of people.

Well, unless LazarX was always a lover of the police state and a "patriot" who thinks America is a wonderful world citizen that would never do anything illegal or wrong.

I'm not a leftist, or a rightists, in fact I don't believe that for the most part that labels do anything but obscure rational discussion.

It's people like HoustonDerek who are their own mirror of the Tea Party. They accept nothing but absolute adherence to their own worldview of politics, where everything that doesn't agree to their point of view is shoved over so far away that they don't acknowledge any differences.

There are differences in the two candidates which are important, just as there are a lot of important areas where they overlap. The difference between me and Derek is that for him the second part is the only area that he can acknowledge. Ralph Nader would not support either for President, but unlike Derek his reasons are clearly articulated and stem from decades of social and progressive work. And I would still support Nader in his active causes today despite the disagreements I do have with the man.

No, I never claimed nor would I say that America is a Golden Boy paragon of virtue. But then again no nation that truly is worth talking about is. Terms like "good" or "evil" don't apply on the global level. Nations have needs, aims, and influences, and in that regard, the United States is much like any other country on the planet. There are better countries to live in, and there are countries that are far worse. I do believe that the United States is in a state of transition in that the post WW2 zenith in that the US dictated a lot to the rest of the planet is gone and those days aren't coming back. It still is at least a 600 lb gorilla in the room, but many of the chimpanzees have grown up and developed muscle of their own. Simmilarly what was once the Soviet Union has broken up to a 500 lb gorilla and a bunch of squabbling 100 lb monkeys, with many of the countries the SU once lorded over, charting their own agendas now.

The biggest change in global politics is that conflict is no longer primarily a contest between nations. Just as political power is in a steady state of transiting from national capitals to international corporations. And that smaller groups can wield power and commit acts of aggression that could not be conceived of in eras of earlier technology. The weapons of war are moving from tank batallions, carrier groups, to SAM armed militias and cyberwar. This means everything changes including the ways we have to judge actions.

801 to 850 of 1,595 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 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.