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

901 to 950 of 1,595 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Comrade del Espada--On the other hand, since I've been against both Gulf Wars, the Afghan War, the War on Terror, the NATO bombardment of Libya, etc., etc., ad nauseam, I might as well be against signature drone strikes in Pakistan as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

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.

Concerning the constitution: I understand what you're saying. But the problem I have with this is you cannot call something which is not a war a war just to be exempt of the difficulties associated with legal issues. Imagine if the same logic is applied to the "War on Drugs".

Yeah, I know what you mean. I don't think Obama is going to do anything of the sort either. But don't you agree that by establishing secret criteria for strikes, using drones in domestic security, punishing people who try to keep the government's actions accountable, all the tools are being put into place for that? It doesn't matter that Obama is not going to do anything of the sort, personally. He's giving a big step in the direction of furnishing the tools for someone down the road doing just that. And it doesn't even need to get there. It is already pretty bad without the doomsday scenario.


thejeff wrote:
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?

I couldn't tell you what they mean by it, that's why I asked.

I guess my pet issue, then, would be, eh, you already know...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
thejeff wrote:

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.

Concerning the constitution: I understand what you're saying. But the problem I have with this is you cannot call something which is not a war a war just to be exempt of the difficulties associated with legal issues. Imagine if the same logic is applied to the "War on Drugs".

Yeah, I know what you mean. I don't think Obama is going to do anything of the sort either. But don't you agree that by establishing secret criteria for strikes, using drones in domestic security, punishing people who try to keep the government's actions accountable, all the tools are being put into place for that? It doesn't matter that Obama is not going to do anything of the sort, personally. He's giving a big step in the direction of furnishing the tools for someone down the road doing just that. And it doesn't even need to get there. It is already pretty bad without the doomsday scenario.

So true and thank you. I voted Libertarian again. Obamney won't give up any executive power or work on the legal issues no matter what.


Thiago Cardozo wrote:
thejeff wrote:

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.

Concerning the constitution: I understand what you're saying. But the problem I have with this is you cannot call something which is not a war a war just to be exempt of the difficulties associated with legal issues. Imagine if the same logic is applied to the "War on Drugs".

Well, you don't get to just call it a war in your PR. He is operating under specific Congressional authorization to use military force. It is a different situation.

Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Yeah, I know what you mean. I don't think Obama is going to do anything of the sort either. But don't you agree that by establishing secret criteria for strikes, using drones in domestic security, punishing people who try to keep the government's actions accountable, all the tools are being put into place for that? It doesn't matter that Obama is not going to do anything of the sort, personally. He's giving a big step in the direction of furnishing the tools for someone down the road doing just that. And it doesn't even need to get there. It is already pretty bad without the doomsday scenario.

It's not just that I don't think Obama will do it. It's that I don't really think the tools are being put in place the way some claim. Legally, military authority doesn't transfer over to civilian law that simply. And as far as PR goes, the use of drones on terrorists far away doesn't have any relation to using them to kill people here. Any more than bombing raids in Vietnam made a precedent for bombing raids of urban centers in the US.


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

You made a list of traits you believe describe career politicians, and those traits don't come anywhere near describing the two most powerful politicians in the country. Now you have the gall to continue to defend your ignorant, anti-politician tirade?

Fine. Here we go.

Senator Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, Democratic Caucus Chairman, and member of the Democratic Party.

Reid grew up in Searchlight, Nevada, a town so small the nearest high school was 40 miles away. His mother was a laundress, his father was a miner who committed suicide. The home he grew up in had no indoor toilet, hot water, or phone. Despite this, he still put himself through the Utah state university system, and eventually earned a law degree from GWU.

Please, tell me about the hardship Harry Reid never experienced.

Senator Dick Durbin, Senate Majority Whip and member of the Democratic Party.

Senator Durbin is the son of an Irish-American father and Lithuanian-born mother. In order to help his family out, he worked in a meatpacking plant while he was in high school.

I guess he never experienced hardship either.

Senator Chuck Schumer, Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman and member of the Democratic Party.

Schumer grew up in Brooklyn to a Jewish family whose claim to power and influence was running a small exterminating business. He attended public schools, and achieved a perfect 1600 score on the SAT, earning his way into Harvard.

But I'm sure you'll come up with a reason why he doesn't deserve to be where he is today.

Senator Patty Murray, Democratic Caucus Secretary and member of the Democratic Party.

Senator Murray is the daughter of a World War II veteran awarded the Purple Heart. Growing up, her family was on welfare because her father eventually developed multiple sclerosis and was unable to work. She went on to become a preschool teacher, and eventually became involved in politics through her education activism.

Why doesn't she count, again, Turin the Mad?

Senator Daniel Inouye, President pro tempore of the United States Senate and member of the Democratic Party.

Born into an immigrant Japanese family in Hawaii. Enlisted in the US Army the moment it dropped its ban on Japanese-American enlistment, and dropped out of pre-med program to do so. He lost his arm in battle, and I will paraphrase what happened to him, because you deserve to be smacked in the face by what it means to serve your country.

As a second lieutenant, Inouye was involved in an assault in Italy. His platoon was pinned down by German machine gun fire. He stood to attack and was shot in the stomach. Despite the wound (this wasn't even the first time he had been shot during the war, by the way), he attacked and destroyed the machine gun nest. He then rallied his men and attacked the second nest, then collapsed from blood loss. He had to crawl to the third and final nest while his platoon distracted them. When he readied a grenade to destroy the nest, a German rifle grenade struck him in the right arm, blowing the arm off. He pried the live grenade from the hand of his own severed arm and threw it into the last machine gun nest, destroying it. He was then hit again in the leg, and fell unconscious. What remained of his arm was amputated, but he remained in the military anyway until 1947.

Inouye has been awarded the Purple Heart, Bronze Star, Distinguished Service Cross, and the Medal of Honor.

So please, Turin the Mad, tell me about the hardship Daniel Inouye has never had to experience.

I didn't cherry-pick these examples. I went to this list of current senators and started at the top (I skipped Biden because I already gave you his story, and I saved Inouye for last because, well, look at that guy). Your take on politicians is crap. You don't know what you're talking about, but you're arrogant enough to act like you do. You're pointlessly cynical, offensively ignorant, and the worst part is that these examples probably won't cause you to carefully re-examine your preconceptions, because that would just be too damned uncomfortable.

By the way, I've so far outlined how six senators don't fit your ridiculous mold that you claim fits "98-99%" of all politicians. There are only 100 US senators, and your mold is 0 for 6.


Scott, could you, for once, choose between bold and italics. It is not necessary to use both.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Scott, could you, for once, choose between bold and italics. It is not necessary to use both.

I think it's pretty.


Fair enough.


equality for all races, religions and gender orientations...except for Muslims and arabs


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

dammit, HD, I disagree with your politics. STOP BEING SO F~!@ING FUNNY. you're making me take you seriously!!


thejeff wrote:


It's not just that I don't think Obama will do it. It's that I don't really think the tools are being put in place the way some claim. Legally, military authority doesn't transfer over to civilian law that simply. And as far as PR goes, the use of...

Are you aware of the NDAA and the journalists suit against it? I'm not being confrontational here, I'm only asking if you read about it in some degree of detail? This has a bearing on this kind of stuff, though not any implication towards drone strikes, of course.

Also note that I point out stuff not only in the realm of legality but also on the realm of morality. Of course I'm risking a lot here in terms of argumentation, because you and I might not share the same values. But by what you have written so far, I'd guess many of these things worry you as well. The legality of them has nothing to do with that, in the end.


Actually, this is an interesting question . Has he stated specifically that some people should be killed in the uprising, or has it instead been implied that some people will die in the inevitably bloody revolution? Does this count as sedition? I doubt it, but still...

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?


Thiago Cardozo wrote:
thejeff wrote:


It's not just that I don't think Obama will do it. It's that I don't really think the tools are being put in place the way some claim. Legally, military authority doesn't transfer over to civilian law that simply. And as far as PR goes, the use of...

Are you are of the NDAA and the journalists suit against it? I'm not being confrontational here, I'm only asking if you read about it in some degree of detail? This has a bearing on this kind of stuff, though not any implication towards drone strikes, of course.

Also note that I point out stuff not only in the realm of legality but also on the realm of morality. Of course I'm risking a lot here in terms of argumentation, because you and I might not share the same values. But by what you have written so far, I'd guess many of these things worry you as well. The legality of them has nothing to do with that, in the end.

Yeah and I think it sucks.

And to go back up a step in the discussion, if the Republicans were fielding a candidate who was taking a stand against any of this kind of thing, I'd be torn on voting, despite everything else I disagree with them on. As it is Romney is at least as bad on military/civil liberty/secrecy issues and much worse on nearly everything else I care about. That's enough for me to not make a protest vote.


Um, I'm right here Freehold.
And although my original response to Comrade Knife has been deleted (I guess I did lose more than one post--and all favorited ones, too!), I have never called for the killing of anybody.


That I can remember.

[bubble bubble bubble]


Freehold DM wrote:
Actually, this is an interesting question . Has he stated specifically that some people should be killed in the uprising, or has it instead been implied that some people will die in the inevitably bloody revolution? Does this count as sedition? I doubt it, but still...

I believe he has called for violent socialist revolution.

So, while that doesn't specifically say some people should be killed, it's also not just saying the revolution is inevitable.


I have never once called for "violent socialist revolution", either. That's usually Meatrace putting words in my mouth.

EDIT: Look for yourself.


Very well. I thought I remembered it, but I'm certainly not going to go searching for it.

The prosecution collapses.


He hits me whenever I open my mouth. :(


There's a great many Repubs that also prove that narrow definition wrong. Dem's don't corner the market on rough beginnings.


My old group sued the FBI back in the '80s when Reagan put us on a terrorist list. The internet is amazing.


Dicey the House Goblin wrote:
He hits me whenever I open my mouth. :(

[Smacks Dicey]

That's not violent revolution, that's house-training!


Dicey, have you favorited my picture?

Vive le Galt!


Dicey would favorite a picture such as that at a cost of most of his finders; I would leave him as few as are required to perform his household duties. I am, however, with you on the proper method of goblin house-training.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
There's a great many Repubs that also prove that narrow definition wrong. Dem's don't corner the market on rough beginnings.

To be fair, he just used the list of US Senators and didn't get past the democratic leadership. The Republican leadership doesn't have as good stories, but only one of them appears to have come from money on a quick look.


TheWhiteknife wrote:


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

Despite saying he's against it, Gary Johnson presided over the execution of Terry Clark in 2001. As Governor, he had the power to commute his sentence to one of life in prison.

Now, I understand there are a whole lot of mitigating circumstances, but that doesn't change the fact that *ahem*:

GARY JOHNSON IS A FILTHY MURDERING SO AND SO!!! HE MAY AS WELL KILL BABIES IN HIS FREE TIME!!!


Okay. So, you were right. I called for killing people here.

And I stand by it, even if Obama does blow me up with a drone.


Kryzbyn wrote:
There's a great many Repubs that also prove that narrow definition wrong. Dem's don't corner the market on rough beginnings.

You're right, though honestly if I'd kept going I would have had to skip a few. Not that all (or even most) of them come from wealth or power, but for whatever reason the Republican party leadership doesn't have the same history of elevating oneself from hardship that the Democratic party leadership has.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I have never once called for "violent socialist revolution", either. That's usually Meatrace putting words in my mouth.

EDIT: Look for yourself.

Hey man, leave me out of it.

I don't put words in peoples mouths, I just give them too much credit. While you continually promote socialist revolution, I thought you would understand, as I do, that no revolution is bloodless*, least of all one involving Amerrricans.

*Icelandic revolution doesn't count. To be fair, though, there's less people in their country than live in my county (by a decent margin).


meatrace wrote:

Hey man, leave me out of it.

I don't put words in peoples mouths, I just give them too much credit.

Well, specifically, I was thinking of the one where you were pretending to be me and said "Blah Blah Blah Violent Revolution Vive le Schmaltz [bubble bubble bubble]," but if you don't want to take credit for it, fine, it was somebody else.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Hey man, leave me out of it.

I don't put words in peoples mouths, I just give them too much credit.

Well, specifically, I was thinking of the one where you were pretending to be me and said "Blah Blah Blah Violent Revolution Vive le Schmaltz [bubble bubble bubble]," but if you don't want to take credit for it, fine, it was somebody else.

I wasn't pretending to be you. You had previously said something like "I lost my train of thought" or something, and I was trying to help a guy out!

Yeesh. Last time I do a favor for someone on these boards!


Uh! Everybody's so grumpy today! Whatever happened to the fun, frolicsome politroll threads of yore? Also, I'm never making a funny picture for you guys again!

Anti-Obama article


Scott Betts wrote:
stuff

Yet you completely avoid your insult to me, calling me out for riding on a 'High Horse' and comporting your responses in a manner more aggressive and offensive than the original post.

What I give you props for is provoking me to do some research of my own. Thank you for that! It doesn't do to maintain a hold on an attitude that is not currently informed. To correct that I did a bit of research.

Silver Spoon Democrats:

8 to match the 8 provided by Scott Betts.

  • 1. Barbary Levy Boxer, junior Senator from California - parents paid her way through college as far as I can tell, which must have been nice; she's done some nifty stuff during her political career, props to her! However, she never worked a real job before becoming a politician;
  • 2. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives - parents paid her way though college too - she is a career politician from Baltimore - you'd think she'd try harder to get Baltimore some help working with Barbara Makulski, the city surely needs it almost as bad as Detroit - she's never worked a real job;
  • 3. Joseph Crowley, Congresscritter for New York's 7th district, career politician - he's never worked a real job;
  • 4. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Congresscritter from Florida's 20th congressional district - she's never worked a real job either, although her parents do, which is pretty cool;
  • 5. Rosa DeLauro, Congresscritter for the 3rd congressional district of Connecticut - racked up some impressive-sounding degrees before commencing with becoming a career politician - she never worked a real job;
  • 6. Michael E. Capuano, Congresscritter for Massachusett's 8th district - became a lawyer, immediately became a politician ... hrm, no real job here either;
  • 7. Mary Landreau, senior Senator from Louisiana, *appears* to have had school paid for her by her parents, worked for all of 3 years as a real estate agent before her political career began;
  • 8. Ben Cardin, junior Senator from Maryland - lawyer and politician since 1967, no real job either.

What else did my rooting around find out? That my slapdash painting of politicians is too broad in its strokes. There are some interesting characters in political office. For the interesting reading I give Scott Betts my thanks again.


Lawyer isn't a real job?
I smell a no true scotsman.


Capuano clip I always enjoy even though he denounced my friends when he was the mayor of Somerville.

Edited link


meatrace wrote:

Lawyer isn't a real job?

I smell a no true scotsman.

He's backing off his claim that all politicians are the same and that none of them deserve to be where they're at. That's good enough for me, and he deserves props for re-examining the issue. As long as he knows to evaluate political figures on their own merits instead of preconceived notions of what all politicians are like, that's progress. A little bit of No True Scotsman isn't a big deal.


Turin the Mad wrote:
1. Barbary Levy Boxer, junior Senator from California - parents paid her way through college as far as I can tell, which must have been nice; she's done some nifty stuff during her political career, props to her! However, she never worked a real job before becoming a politician;

While you deserve credit for changing your point of view, I did want to make a small correction regarding Boxer (she's my senator): Boxer worked as a stock broker and journalist prior to becoming a politician, and during that time helped support her husband while he completed his law degree (he didn't become a politician; he works as a workers comp attorney).

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
meatrace wrote:

Lawyer isn't a real job?

I smell a no true scotsman.

Neither is journalist, stock broker, office worker (most of the 'career politicians started as aides and interns in and just after college), administrative assistant, etc.

Heck, most of the local positions those senators and congressfolk had to start out barely count as jobs based on their salaries/honorariums. I know how much my township supervisors are paid. They would make more money selling plasma.


Scott Betts wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
There's a great many Repubs that also prove that narrow definition wrong. Dem's don't corner the market on rough beginnings.
You're right, though honestly if I'd kept going I would have had to skip a few. Not that all (or even most) of them come from wealth or power, but for whatever reason the Republican party leadership doesn't have the same history of elevating oneself from hardship that the Democratic party leadership has.

Wasn't going for a fairness thing here, just poitning out there are stories on both sides that further invalidate the broad brush used.

Ergo, backing up your position :P

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
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 were physically located in Yemen?

I still say no.

Unless you've got actual evidence that Obama, or Bush for that matter is putting people on a kill list solely for the crime of making comedically idiotic internet posts, that's a strawman question not worthy of a serious response. As far as I know, Anklebiter has not been engaged in activities that would qualify listing him as an enemy combatant.


Hey, if I've learned anything in the past 2 years, it's that working for the government at any level (that includes teachers, but somehow excludes cops) you haven't had a real job. Journalist? Well you're part of the lame-stream media! Worker's comp attourney? Hippie scum!

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:

Wasn't going for a fairness thing here, just pointing out there are stories on both sides that further invalidate the broad brush used.

Ergo, backing up your position :P

Senator McCain is a pretty good example, even if he was officer instead of enlisted. :)


Krensky wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Lawyer isn't a real job?

I smell a no true scotsman.

Neither is journalist, stock broker, office worker (most of the 'career politicians started as aides and interns in and just after college), administrative assistant, etc.

Heck, most of the local positions those senators and congressfolk had to start out barely count as jobs based on their salaries/honorariums. I know how much my township supervisors are paid. They would make more money selling plasma.

I've done that, $60 a week is pretty bad.


Kryzbyn wrote:

Wasn't going for a fairness thing here, just poitning out there are stories on both sides that further invalidate the broad brush used.

Ergo, backing up your position :P

Well, that's all well and good, but it ignores the majority of Republican politicians who are literally hatched from a pod.

Then there's the reptilians.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
There's a great many Repubs that also prove that narrow definition wrong. Dem's don't corner the market on rough beginnings.
You're right, though honestly if I'd kept going I would have had to skip a few. Not that all (or even most) of them come from wealth or power, but for whatever reason the Republican party leadership doesn't have the same history of elevating oneself from hardship that the Democratic party leadership has.

Wasn't going for a fairness thing here, just poitning out there are stories on both sides that further invalidate the broad brush used.

Ergo, backing up your position :P

I fully admitted that I was wrong to do so. It makes for interesting reading!

A lot of people don't consider certain things a "real job" though. ;)


Personally, I don't consider [INSERT YOUR PROFESSION HERE] to be a real job. That's something old women and pensioners do, and you should feel really bad about yourself. Also, your haircut makes you look like a t&@!.


Scott Betts wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
1. Barbary Levy Boxer, junior Senator from California - parents paid her way through college as far as I can tell, which must have been nice; she's done some nifty stuff during her political career, props to her! However, she never worked a real job before becoming a politician;
While you deserve credit for changing your point of view, I did want to make a small correction regarding Boxer (she's my senator): Boxer worked as a stock broker and journalist prior to becoming a politician, and during that time helped support her husband while he completed his law degree (he didn't become a politician; he works as a workers comp attorney).

Weird, the article on her did not mention her pre-political work. :(

Law school can be pretty tough from what I just found out. A would-be attorney in more than a few programs cannot hold a job at all while getting their degree, not even during the summer break between semesters. I'm guessing due to a guiding principle of 'no conflicts of interest', perhaps?


meatrace wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Wasn't going for a fairness thing here, just poitning out there are stories on both sides that further invalidate the broad brush used.

Ergo, backing up your position :P

Well, that's all well and good, but it ignores the majority of Republican politicians who are literally hatched from a pod.

Then there's the reptilians.

Yep you got the broad brush down...


Kryzbyn wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Wasn't going for a fairness thing here, just poitning out there are stories on both sides that further invalidate the broad brush used.

Ergo, backing up your position :P

Well, that's all well and good, but it ignores the majority of Republican politicians who are literally hatched from a pod.

Then there's the reptilians.

Yep you got the broad brush down...

I'm tellin ya. It's the reptilians ya gotta watch out for. ;)

901 to 950 of 1,595 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 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.