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

851 to 900 of 1,595 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | next > last >>

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

Obama didn't want the occupiers roughed up.

Of course, the militarization of our police agencies continues apace. Cops in riot gear dream of busting heads, not being respectful of anyone's message.


LazarX wrote:
HoustonDrek

I'm sorry, but I pretty much stopped reading when you referred to Derek as excrement. Do you not realize this sort of thing undermines your argument?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A highly regarded expert wrote:
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

Obama didn't want the occupiers roughed up.

Of course, the militarization of our police agencies continues apace. Cops in riot gear dream of busting heads, not being respectful of anyone's message.

Poppycock! I heard that after he personally pepper-sprayed the Portland protestors he punched a puppy!!

Spoiler:
Srly, though, Comrade Del Espada, I don't know if you've been following along from the beginning of the thread, but blaming Obama for stuff is kind of a running joke. At least, I think it's funny...


Ringtail wrote:

Voting Obama.

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

I hear you. Our president will most likely be appointing Supremes in the next term. That alone is enough reason to vote.

Do you want the court to revisit Citizens United, or outlaw abortion? That's where we are.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

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'll never take me alive, copper! I'm on top of the world, ma!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter actively talks about killing US citizens via worker's revolutions. Should he be killed?

What?!? Bullshiznit! Where have I ever called for killing US citizens? And was serious...

Also, the answer is "no," Comrade Anklebiter should not be killed.

I agree.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
A highly regarded expert wrote:
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

Obama didn't want the occupiers roughed up.

Of course, the militarization of our police agencies continues apace. Cops in riot gear dream of busting heads, not being respectful of anyone's message.

Poppycock! I heard that after he personally pepper-sprayed the Portland protestors he punched a puppy!!

** spoiler omitted **

He didn't punch a puppy. He was tenderizing it. :D


houstonderek wrote:

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.

And used drones as well. Use has expanded as the tech got better.

wiki wrote:
In November 2002, six Yemenis suspected of being members of al Qaeda were blown up in their car in the province of Marib by a hellfire missile attack from an unmanned CIA RQ-1 Predator aircraft. Among the dead was Abu Ali al-Harithi.

Most of the Yemeni detainees were actually taken from Afghanistan or Pakistan. I couldn't find evidence of any captured on Special Forces raids in Yemen. Doesn't mean there weren't and I didn't search that hard.

Andoran

bugleyman wrote:
LazarX wrote:
HoustonDrek

I'm sorry, but I pretty much stopped reading when you referred to Derek as excrement. Do you not realize this sort of thing undermines your argument?

I'm going with typo. I make similar vowel drops as well when I'm typing a long post quickly.


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.

Oh yeah, in all the hullaballo, I forgot:

"Cindy has had a political transformation that eventually led her to Revolutionary Socialism as the solution to the Imperialist/Capitalist two-party stranglehold on not only US politics, but, by extension, the world."

Vive le Galt!

Andoran

thejeff wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

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.

And used drones as well. Use has expanded as the tech got better.

wiki wrote:
In November 2002, six Yemenis suspected of being members of al Qaeda were blown up in their car in the province of Marib by a hellfire missile attack from an unmanned CIA RQ-1 Predator aircraft. Among the dead was Abu Ali al-Harithi.

Most of the Yemeni detainees were actually taken from Afghanistan or Pakistan. I couldn't find evidence of any captured on Special Forces raids in Yemen. Doesn't mean there weren't and I didn't search that hard.

The big difference was Bush's people wanted to capture them for info. Obama apparently doesn't need any intel to know who to kill. He's the Messiah, after all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:
thejeff wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

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.

And used drones as well. Use has expanded as the tech got better.

wiki wrote:
In November 2002, six Yemenis suspected of being members of al Qaeda were blown up in their car in the province of Marib by a hellfire missile attack from an unmanned CIA RQ-1 Predator aircraft. Among the dead was Abu Ali al-Harithi.

Most of the Yemeni detainees were actually taken from Afghanistan or Pakistan. I couldn't find evidence of any captured on Special Forces raids in Yemen. Doesn't mean there weren't and I didn't search that hard.

The big difference was Bush's people wanted to capture them for info. Obama apparently doesn't need any intel to know who to kill. He's the Messiah, after all.

So, we don't actually know that Bush used Special Forces to capture Yemenis in Yemen. We do know that he did use drones to kill them.

We also know that Bush started the War on Terror. We know that he tried to legalize and legitimize torture.

But apparently Obama is much worse because ... Messiah???

Why am I wasting my time?

Andoran

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
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.

Oh yeah, in all the hullaballo, I forgot:

"Cindy has had a political transformation that eventually led her to Revolutionary Socialism as the solution to the Imperialist/Capitalist two-party stranglehold on not only US politics, but, by extension, the world."

Vive le Galt!

I told you she's a very cool lady. She was big time for Obama, but, like a lot of lefties, feels completely betrayed.

Funny, when she was camped outside of Bush's ranch in Crawford, she was the media's darling and a great lady. Now that she's critical of Obama, the rest of the media seem to agree with Fox's opinion that she's nuts.

Actually, it's funny, the greater media use a lot of the same verbiage to defend Obama's warmongering Fox used to defend Bush. Amazing how just changing the letter after the office holder ("r"/"d") makes some actions more acceptable to hypocrites.


houstonderek wrote:
I'm going with typo. I make similar vowel drops as well when I'm typing a long post quickly.

As do I -- but this was repeated numerous times throughout the post.


houstonderek wrote:

I told you she's a very cool lady. She was big time for Obama, but, like a lot of lefties, feels completely betrayed.

Yeah, my current comrades told me that they put on a national tour for her in the last two or three years. (Maybe more, I don't remember.) I guess she used to be a member or something...


I don't know why everybody's being so mean when they could be favoriting Comrade Anklebiter's picture.


One of the full speeches in the book (or part of it anyway)--the quote Kryzbyn linked was just a blurb.


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

I don't think that's true.

I think blacks became heavily Democratic voters back under Roosevelt.

I had to read a bunch of Zora Neale Hurston for a couple of classes and she, even back in 1946, was considered an oddity for being a black Republican.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
LazarX wrote:
HoustonDrek

I'm sorry, but I pretty much stopped reading when you referred to Derek as excrement. Do you not realize this sort of thing undermines your argument?

I didn't intend to, I drop certain keys every now and then and if a spell checker doesn't catch it, I might not notice it in time. I'll see if I can edit the post.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The modern preference of blacks for the Democratic party and racists for the Republican party dates to then.

I don't think that's true.

I think blacks became heavily Democratic voters back under Roosevelt.

I had to read a bunch of Zora Neale Hurston for a couple of classes and she, even back in 1946, was considered an oddity for being a black Republican.

You're right about that. Though many blacks didn't have much chance to vote at the time.

The shift started with FDR, became even stronger with Truman (integrating the military?) but had weakened a bit before LBJ definitively solidified it. The movement of racists towards the Republicans did begin then with the reaction to Civil Rights and the Southern Strategy.


Yeah, I was going to add an edit "when they were allowed to vote at all" but you beat me to it.


thejeff wrote:


Well, this particular go round started when, again, Whiteknife implied that there was no difference between using drones in de facto war zones and using them to kill people domestically.

There isnt. Both kill people. Both would be done using secret criteria. Even you have pointed out that there is no difference. We guarantee due process in our Bill of Rights to everyone, not just US citizens. The only way that we have denyed that is if the person we were after was an immediate threat. Let me amend my question then. Should we kill Comrade Anklebiter for his internet posts, if he were physically located in Yemen?

I still say no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, me too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If anyone offers you a free all expenses paid trip to Yemen, Comrade, dont accept it.

Paizo Employee Digital Products Assistant

I think we can discuss this without making our profanity filter work this hard. Please don't try to get around it. Additionally, do not be abusive to other posters. A good deal of posts were removed because of these reasons (I'm sure there are more, but this thread is quite large).


TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Well, this particular go round started when, again, Whiteknife implied that there was no difference between using drones in de facto war zones and using them to kill people domestically.

There isnt. Both kill people. Both would be done using secret criteria. Even you have pointed out that there is no difference. We guarantee due process in our Bill of Rights to everyone, not just US citizens. The only way that we have denyed that is if the person we were after was an immediate threat. Let me amend my question then. Should we kill Comrade Anklebiter for his internet posts, if he was located in Yemen?

I still say no.

I also say no. But I still maintain that "ohmigod Obama's going to send drones to kill you!!!" rhetoric is crap.

I do think the question becomes a little bit harder if he was not merely making posts advocating socialist revolution, but was claiming to be with a group that had actually sent people to start violent revolutions in the US and had started violent socialist revolutions elsewhere.
I'm still not happy with it, but it's a more complex question than "Should we kill this guy who's made some non-serious threats and has no ability or apparent intent to carry them out."


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

If you're the sort of person who actually doesn't care about the issues that divide the two candidates (read: nearly every issue out there, including energy investment, gay rights, education, handling the budget, immigration, military spending, separation of church and state, and about a thousand more), I really don't have any respect for you.


houstonderek wrote:
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.

Again, houstonderek, what do you think calling me a "blathering fool" is going to accomplish? If you had the ability to show that what I'm calling "facts" are actually not facts, you would have done so.

Quote:
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.

Sounds like you should vote for Romney, houstonderek. Enjoy Wednesday morning.


Scott Betts wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
But you do understand that to many who have specific concerns that they elevate higher than others, they are roughly interchangeable, correct?
If you're the sort of person who actually doesn't care about the issues that divide the two candidates (read: nearly every issue out there, including energy investment, gay rights, education, handling the budget, immigration, military spending, separation of church and state, and about a thousand more), I really don't have any respect for you.

I can live with that, seeing as how I have no respect for those who endorse wholesale murder.

Edit-to wit, if you cannot see why someone would elevate civil liberties and executive over-reach, I question your logic. Would you rather argue about the other stuff with the possibility, however remote, that the side in power will have you killed, or without? Me, I choose without. I love that people can disagree. But I want them to be able to disagree without fear.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
If anyone offers you a free all expenses paid trip to Yemen, Comrade, dont accept it.

I'm staying put right here in the Granite State.

Live free or die!


thejeff wrote:
I also say no.

Thank you, Comrade Jeff.

thejeff wrote:
I do think the question becomes a little bit harder if he was not merely making posts advocating socialist revolution, but was claiming to be with a group that had actually sent people to start violent revolutions in the US and had started violent socialist revolutions elsewhere.

Um, don't look here.

Spoiler:
Vive le Galt!


thejeff wrote:


I do think the question becomes a little bit harder if he was not merely making posts advocating socialist revolution, but was claiming to be with a group that had actually sent people to start violent revolutions in the US and had started violent socialist revolutions elsewhere.

Gee, its almost like there should be some sort of public trial laid out, maybe even with actual evidence, before the execution is carried out to clear up any of those things that make the question harder, huh?


Scott Betts wrote:
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.

I've been through everything on that list I made, so you can jam your attitude towards me where the sun doesn't shine.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I do think the question becomes a little bit harder if he was not merely making posts advocating socialist revolution, but was claiming to be with a group that had actually sent people to start violent revolutions in the US and had started violent socialist revolutions elsewhere.

Gee, its almost like there should be some sort of public trial laid out, maybe even with actual evidence, before the execution is carried out to clear up any of those things that make the question harder, huh?

And now we're back to the can't get a hold of him problem.

Obviously the best solution is for the local authorities to arrest him, the US to present sufficient evidence for extradition and to try him in the US. I'm not disputing that. I don't think Obama would either, judging from his actions.

The hard question is what to do when that isn't possible. Your answer appears to be: Nothing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why must he be prsent? Sure send out an APB for him to come for his trial, but regardless if he shows or not, give him a defense and let a jury of his peers decide if he should be executed or not!

Letting one man decide which of his subjects can live and which can die is no way to run a republic.

Edit- and what you definitely do not do is just start missling people who are in a place where he might be, regardless of who actually is. (signature strikes)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:
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?

I'm starting to think that LazarX has no idea about what are signature strikes, since his mention of a specific named target directly contradicts the nature of signature strikes.


TheWhiteknife wrote:

Why must he be prsent? Sure send out an APB for him to come for his trial, but regardless if he shows or not, give him a defense and let a jury of his peers decide if he should be executed or not!

Letting one man decide which of his subjects can live and which can die is no way to run a republic.

Well, under US law a trial in absentia would be no more Constitutional.

Less perhaps, since that would be bringing the whole business out of war powers into criminal law, where much less leeway is allowed.


thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I do think the question becomes a little bit harder if he was not merely making posts advocating socialist revolution, but was claiming to be with a group that had actually sent people to start violent revolutions in the US and had started violent socialist revolutions elsewhere.

Gee, its almost like there should be some sort of public trial laid out, maybe even with actual evidence, before the execution is carried out to clear up any of those things that make the question harder, huh?

And now we're back to the can't get a hold of him problem.

Obviously the best solution is for the local authorities to arrest him, the US to present sufficient evidence for extradition and to try him in the US. I'm not disputing that. I don't think Obama would either, judging from his actions.

The hard question is what to do when that isn't possible. Your answer appears to be: Nothing.

The thing is, the constitution does not say it is valid unless it becomes difficult to follow it, in which case you ignore it. It is valid. That's the end of it. That works the same with morality. Moral codes are not about expedience.

Sometimes people act and think as if they were confronting the hordes of Baator, with enemies which attack them out of pure malice. One way to make life safer for americans in the long run is to stop playing bully. On the other hand, terrifying entire populations with flying killer robots appears to be the recipe for an eternal conflict with shadowy enemies.

Qadira

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358804578016270614705726.h tml


Thiago Cardozo wrote:
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I do think the question becomes a little bit harder if he was not merely making posts advocating socialist revolution, but was claiming to be with a group that had actually sent people to start violent revolutions in the US and had started violent socialist revolutions elsewhere.

Gee, its almost like there should be some sort of public trial laid out, maybe even with actual evidence, before the execution is carried out to clear up any of those things that make the question harder, huh?

And now we're back to the can't get a hold of him problem.

Obviously the best solution is for the local authorities to arrest him, the US to present sufficient evidence for extradition and to try him in the US. I'm not disputing that. I don't think Obama would either, judging from his actions.

The hard question is what to do when that isn't possible. Your answer appears to be: Nothing.

The thing is, the constitution does not say it is valid unless it becomes difficult to follow it, in which case you ignore it. It is valid. That's the end of it. That works the same with morality. Moral codes are not about expedience.

Sometimes people act and think as if they were confronting the hordes of Baator, with enemies which attack them out of pure malice. One way to make life safer for americans in the long run is to stop playing bully. On the other hand, terrifying entire populations with flying killer robots appears to be the recipe for an eternal conflict with shadowy enemies.

First, since all of this is not being done under criminal law all of the constitutional objections about due process and similar things are really not relevant. They are being done as military operations. That may raise different constitutional questions, but not the ones usually brought up.

Second, I agree with you. I think the entire War on Terror was a bad approach from the start.
I really only get into these drone arguments when someone blurs the line into "ohmigod Obama's going to send drones to kill you!!!" rhetoric. Then I try to bring out the difference and wind up seeming like I'm defending the policy far more than I want to.


TheWhiteknife wrote:

I can live with that, seeing as how I have no respect for those who endorse wholesale murder.

Edit-to wit, if you cannot see why someone would elevate civil liberties and executive over-reach, I question your logic. Would you rather argue about the other stuff with the possibility, however remote, that the side in power will have you killed, or without? Me, I choose without. I love that people can disagree. But I want them to be able to disagree without fear.

What is it that you're not understanding?

Unless you elevate those handful of pet issues (that you're not even correct about to begin with) so far above all the other issues I listed combined that they all become utterly meaningless over both the short and long term, you cannot claim that the two candidates are interchangeable. And if you do elevate those issues that high, you don't have my respect because your priorities are monstrous.

I don't think you elevate those issues that high, mind you. I think you just haven't thought about it enough, and it's easier to continue to run with the cynical fiction that the two candidates are functionally equivalent than it is to seriously examine what you really care about, and to make hard decisions about what compromise means in a democracy.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

When did civil liberties become a pet issue?


thejeff wrote:

Second, I agree with you. I think the entire War on Terror was a bad approach from the start.

I really only get...

I agree. The first mistake was Iraq. Right after 9-11, we had virtually unanimous support all over the world.

Using that goodwill to use diplomacy and really good spying and special ops, we could have rounded up the guilty and improved relations with the Muslim world immensely.

Instead, we chose the path of greed and belligerence to keep the commodities under our "strategic" control. I don't like the drones, either, but whining about them now after we've killed a million or so and injured and displaced millions more, seems a little off point.

Targeting terrorists is a dirty business, but we blew our shot at doing it right long before Obama showed up.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
When did civil liberties become a pet issue?

Any individual issues are pet issues.

And what exactly do we mean by civil liberties anyway?
Since it doesn't seem to include racial discrimination, gay rights, women's issue or have the other things I usually file under that category.

851 to 900 of 1,595 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 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.