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

1 to 50 of 1,595 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Guys, I know you're worried about Romney and I can understand why. But do you think this is just a minor, unimportant issue? Really? This does not scare the **** out of you?

“Today is October 10th, 2012 and I am ready to go to prison.”


Are you now or have you been a member of the communist party?


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Are you now or have you been a member of the communist party?

Luckily for me I'm not affiliated to or support any parties...I swear!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Are you now or have you been a member of the communist party?
Luckily for me I'm not affiliated to or support any parties...I swear!

INITIATING LIE-DETECTION PROTOCOLS.


One-Of-Many wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Are you now or have you been a member of the communist party?
Luckily for me I'm not affiliated to or support any parties...I swear!
INITIATING LIE-DETECTION PROTOCOLS.

Thoughtcrime does not entail death...thoughtcrime IS death.


One-Of-Many wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Are you now or have you been a member of the communist party?
Luckily for me I'm not affiliated to or support any parties...I swear!
INITIATING LIE-DETECTION PROTOCOLS.

Poo flingers READY!!!

AIM!!!

Wait for it.....


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Are you now or have you been a member of the communist party?

The Communist Party are a bunch of stooges of the plutocracy!

Vive le Galt!


I'm guessing the Obama apologists are going to remain silent on this, as always. Here's to hoping someone shows up, thus proving me wrong, and explains how is this acceptable.

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

16 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's hoping that trolling eventually loses its luster and maturity sets in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fat chance!


Why is this trolling? It's not like this subject has been beaten to death, and here I am trying to pick up fights when everyone already knows where everyone stands on it. This is no edition wars.

It is just that in the political discussions people are having, whenever this comes up, people go mute on the subject. I'd like to know if there is any defense of this stuff, or this is just a non-issue, if people are scared to talk about it or whatever. This is something that appears really serious to me, and here comes the unicorn and calls me a troll for that. Way to go.

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

There's no defense for stupid. No cure either, which is the truly tragic part.

Edit: Also, unicorns have a horn.


It's alright, Citizen Cardoso, the unicorn only exists to spread snark.

Also, when you start spin-off threads, don't expect everyone stumbling over your new thread to know that there is a back story of shills--uh, I mean, supporters--of the Democrats chewing you out.

Also, trolls are sexy.


Sebastian wrote:

There's no defense for stupid. No cure either, which is the truly tragic part.

Edit: Also, unicorns have a horn.

Yeah, it's a faerie horse, easily confused...cut me some slack here, please.

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh wait, good news. Looking at the Paizo user license, which we all read and agreed to upon becomming members of the community, it turns out that:

"The federal government and 49 of 50 state governments (Rhode Island being the one hold out, and who cares about that glorified county turned into a state) have designated the Paizo messageboards as the principal fora for discussing and resolving issues relating to the detainment of U.S. citizens (or vague strings of "facts" arranged in such a way as to sound like a detainment of a U.S. citizen) and assigning blame therefor. Any determination by the Paizo messageboards shall be binding upon the federal government and 49 out of 50 state governments (and, for the avoidance of doubt, screw you Rhode Island)."

Huh. Looks like this is the right place to have a discussion of this important issue.


Hmmm...well people ARE discussing politics in this forum and I haven't seen you prancing around with your purple hooves enlightening people on how unreasonable discussing it here is.

Of course this IS the off-topic discussion part of the forum so this does not sound so absurd if you look from this strikingly innovative perspective....


Just let it go, Thiago.

I like your thread.


I don't agree with this. I still don't think getting rid of government will end persucution like this it will still happen. Heck try getting a job for someone who is too scared to talk on the telephone and there are not any laws I know of forcing job canidates to be notified by telephone.

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

I don't know if incomprehensible is the same as being off-topic...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

No defense. This is crap. (Assuming, of course, that the story is legit and there is no real case here.)

OTOH, it's bipartisan crap and similar crap has been going on for decades.

There's no defense for it, but the knee-jerk reaction of opposing any politician who allows it is dumb too.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a civil contempt of court charge for refusing to testify before a grand jury after being given immunity correct?

They should count themselve lucky, up here you don't get the immunity :P

Seriously though, what is going on here? Hipsters aren't that great at blogging about the legal system in an informative way. What does the grand jury system have to do with Obama's time as el presidenté?

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

It's a civil contempt of court charge for refusing to testify before a grand jury after being given immunity correct?

They should count themselve lucky, up here you don't get the immunity :P

Seriously though, what is going on here? Hipsters aren't that great at blogging about the legal system in an informative way.

You have to read carefully, but it's pretty clear that Obama punched her in the kidneys for being an anarchist. Then the CIA/UN came roaring into the area in black helicopters and started arresting people at random and accusing them of treason, bootlegging, and sasquatch-harassment. A "trial" was convened at the super underwater laboratory of Joe "Secretly a Clone of Hitler" Biden. Mitt "Justice is my Middle Name" Romney broke into the underwater laboratory and saved her, but was subsequently captured and replaced with a malfunctioning robot. Mitt escaped immediately prior to the debate, while at the same time, Barack Hussein "Secretly a Scary Commie Muslim" Obama left his own malfunctioning robot to participate in the debate while he raped stray dogs and forced birth control pills down the throats of nuns.

That's what I took away, but I took three years of French and only one year of Wingbattery in high school, and I could be mistranslating.


I don't think it's the grand jury system, Comrade Hawkshaw, it's the state repression, surveillance and harassment of leftist activists.

I know that whenever the FBI goes looking for black clothes and books by Bakunin, my spider sense starts tingling.


Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

It's a civil contempt of court charge for refusing to testify before a grand jury after being given immunity correct?

They should count themselve lucky, up here you don't get the immunity :P

Seriously though, what is going on here? Hipsters aren't that great at blogging about the legal system in an informative way. What does the grand jury system have to do with Obama's time as el presidenté?

I didn't see anything about immunity. It sounds more like being subpoena'd for a grand jury and refusing to testify. If it really is a fishing expedition just looking for other anarchist who might have been involved or might know something, then they can't really take the fifth and this is a principle, if illegal, stand. OTOH, the fishing is usually not legal anyway. On the gripping hand, I haven't read anything about this beyond that obviously biased post, so the real story could be entirely different.

Taldor

thejeff wrote:
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

It's a civil contempt of court charge for refusing to testify before a grand jury after being given immunity correct?

They should count themselve lucky, up here you don't get the immunity :P

Seriously though, what is going on here? Hipsters aren't that great at blogging about the legal system in an informative way. What does the grand jury system have to do with Obama's time as el presidenté?

I didn't see anything about immunity. It sounds more like being subpoena'd for a grand jury and refusing to testify. If it really is a fishing expedition just looking for other anarchist who might have been involved or might know something, then they can't really take the fifth and this is a principle, if illegal, stand. OTOH, the fishing is usually not legal anyway. On the gripping hand, I haven't read anything about this beyond that obviously biased post, so the real story could be entirely different.

I thought that at a grand jury you can plead the fifth and not get contempt of court. However, once you have been promised immunity there is no risk of self-incrimination, so the fifth isn't available and so refusing to answer is no longer an option.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

This is contempt of court. You don't have the right to refuse to testify when subpoenaed. If you refuse to testify (and you're not one of several exempt cases, such as refusing to incriminate yourself, revealing privileged information, etc.), then that's contempt of court. This doesn't have anything to do with President Obama, and as she's said, she's choosing prison in lieu of testimony.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I know that whenever the FBI goes looking for black clothes and books by Bakunin, my spider sense starts tingling.

Mine too, but it fades when I see that someone is willing to go to prison rather than testify against someone. If her testimony weren't condemning, then she'd be happy to exonerate the people she was being asked to testify against.

Taldor

A Man In Black wrote:


Mine too, but it fades when I see that someone is willing to go to prison rather than testify against someone. If her testimony weren't condemning, then she'd be happy to exonerate the people she was being asked to testify against.

I'm not a big fan of state compelled speech in semi secret criminal proceedings with limited judical oversight.


Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

It's a civil contempt of court charge for refusing to testify before a grand jury after being given immunity correct?

They should count themselve lucky, up here you don't get the immunity :P

Seriously though, what is going on here? Hipsters aren't that great at blogging about the legal system in an informative way. What does the grand jury system have to do with Obama's time as el presidenté?

I didn't see anything about immunity. It sounds more like being subpoena'd for a grand jury and refusing to testify. If it really is a fishing expedition just looking for other anarchist who might have been involved or might know something, then they can't really take the fifth and this is a principle, if illegal, stand. OTOH, the fishing is usually not legal anyway. On the gripping hand, I haven't read anything about this beyond that obviously biased post, so the real story could be entirely different.
I thought that at a grand jury you can plead the fifth and not get contempt of court. However, once you have been promised immunity there is no risk of self-incrimination, so the fifth isn't available and so refusing to answer is no longer an option.

You can plead the fifth at a grand jury, but you can only do so if the answer would be incriminating. You can't use the fifth to just refuse to answer questions.

Taldor

"I don't recall" "I can't remember" "I'm not sure" etc.. off the table as well?


A Man In Black wrote:

This is contempt of court. You don't have the right to refuse to testify when subpoenaed. If you refuse to testify (and you're not one of several exempt cases, such as refusing to incriminate yourself, revealing privileged information, etc.), then that's contempt of court. This doesn't have anything to do with President Obama, and as she's said, she's choosing prison in lieu of testimony.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I know that whenever the FBI goes looking for black clothes and books by Bakunin, my spider sense starts tingling.
Mine too, but it fades when I see that someone is willing to go to prison rather than testify against someone. If her testimony weren't condemning, then she'd be happy to exonerate the people she was being asked to testify against.

Depends on what they're asking. If, for example, they're not asking questions that could exonerate people, but just want the names of all the people she knows in anarchist circles, then not answering is a principled act. Think the McCarthy hearings.


Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
"I don't recall" "I can't remember" "I'm not sure" etc.. off the table as well?

No. For that matter, you can take the 5th, since it's difficult to prove it wouldn't be incriminating. But, since you do remember and it wouldn't be incriminating, those would be lies.

That's why it's a principled stand.

Assuming, as I said before, that the situation is what I've inferred from the linked article.

Taldor

thejeff wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:

This is contempt of court. You don't have the right to refuse to testify when subpoenaed. If you refuse to testify (and you're not one of several exempt cases, such as refusing to incriminate yourself, revealing privileged information, etc.), then that's contempt of court. This doesn't have anything to do with President Obama, and as she's said, she's choosing prison in lieu of testimony.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I know that whenever the FBI goes looking for black clothes and books by Bakunin, my spider sense starts tingling.
Mine too, but it fades when I see that someone is willing to go to prison rather than testify against someone. If her testimony weren't condemning, then she'd be happy to exonerate the people she was being asked to testify against.
Depends on what they're asking. If, for example, they're not asking questions that could exonerate people, but just want the names of all the people she knows in anarchist circles, then not answering is a principled act. Think the McCarthy hearings.

Yeah there is a big difference between asking "Did you see X toss a molotov cocktail at the hockey riot" and "have you ever seen X with a copy of Atlas Shrugged" or "who do you see at the hipster organo/vegan/wheatfree anarchist lounge/whole foods on a regular basis".

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

thejeff wrote:


But, since you do remember and it wouldn't be incriminating, those would be lies.

Yes, but they are lies that are impossible to refute absent mind-reading technology, which is why all the great b#$$+#@!ters claim they can't remember when they're on the stand.


Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
thejeff wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:

This is contempt of court. You don't have the right to refuse to testify when subpoenaed. If you refuse to testify (and you're not one of several exempt cases, such as refusing to incriminate yourself, revealing privileged information, etc.), then that's contempt of court. This doesn't have anything to do with President Obama, and as she's said, she's choosing prison in lieu of testimony.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I know that whenever the FBI goes looking for black clothes and books by Bakunin, my spider sense starts tingling.
Mine too, but it fades when I see that someone is willing to go to prison rather than testify against someone. If her testimony weren't condemning, then she'd be happy to exonerate the people she was being asked to testify against.
Depends on what they're asking. If, for example, they're not asking questions that could exonerate people, but just want the names of all the people she knows in anarchist circles, then not answering is a principled act. Think the McCarthy hearings.
Yeah there is a big difference between asking "Did you see X toss a molotov cocktail at the hockey riot" and "have you ever seen X with a copy of Atlas Shrugged" or "who do you see at the hipster organo/vegan/wheatfree anarchist lounge/whole foods on a regular basis".

Beware of pissing off vegans. They've got psionic powers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Us it time for us smurfs yet?

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
thejeff wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:

This is contempt of court. You don't have the right to refuse to testify when subpoenaed. If you refuse to testify (and you're not one of several exempt cases, such as refusing to incriminate yourself, revealing privileged information, etc.), then that's contempt of court. This doesn't have anything to do with President Obama, and as she's said, she's choosing prison in lieu of testimony.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I know that whenever the FBI goes looking for black clothes and books by Bakunin, my spider sense starts tingling.
Mine too, but it fades when I see that someone is willing to go to prison rather than testify against someone. If her testimony weren't condemning, then she'd be happy to exonerate the people she was being asked to testify against.
Depends on what they're asking. If, for example, they're not asking questions that could exonerate people, but just want the names of all the people she knows in anarchist circles, then not answering is a principled act. Think the McCarthy hearings.
Yeah there is a big difference between asking "Did you see X toss a molotov cocktail at the hockey riot" and "have you ever seen X with a copy of Atlas Shrugged" or "who do you see at the hipster organo/vegan/wheatfree anarchist lounge/whole foods on a regular basis".
Beware of pissing off vegans. They've got psionic powers.

I'll take that risk, if we mundanes don't stop them now, they'll eventually form the Psi Corps and try to take over the Earth Alliance.


Stop snitchin'!: 1


Sebastian wrote:
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:

It's a civil contempt of court charge for refusing to testify before a grand jury after being given immunity correct?

They should count themselve lucky, up here you don't get the immunity :P

Seriously though, what is going on here? Hipsters aren't that great at blogging about the legal system in an informative way.

You have to read carefully, but it's pretty clear that Obama punched her in the kidneys for being an anarchist. Then the CIA/UN came roaring into the area in black helicopters and started arresting people at random and accusing them of treason, bootlegging, and sasquatch-harassment. A "trial" was convened at the super underwater laboratory of Joe "Secretly a Clone of Hitler" Biden. Mitt "Justice is my Middle Name" Romney broke into the underwater laboratory and saved her, but was subsequently captured and replaced with a malfunctioning robot. Mitt escaped immediately prior to the debate, while at the same time, Barack Hussein "Secretly a Scary Commie Muslim" Obama left his own malfunctioning robot to participate in the debate while he raped stray dogs and forced birth control pills down the throats of nuns.

That's what I took away, but I took three years of French and only one year of Wingbattery in high school, and I could be mistranslating.

Never fear my purple hoofed fella, I'm here to explain to you what transpires in this discussion, as it appears you got yourself confused while running around, and has been unable to properly understand what is in debate! Our dear Comrade fella appears to be more on the spot, so that's a initial guideline for you. Do not meander!

What is in discussion here is how the extension of state powers to confront "terror" have been influencing people's lives. An extension which was initiated with Bush and has continued under Obama. The coordination of NYPD with the FBI in order to choke the OWS movement for instance <--- ; the war on whistleblowers; the treatment of Bradley Manning; the persecution of activists and filmmakers like Laura Poitras.

No one argues, friendly equine, that Romney would do better if left unchecked. Because it is probably not true. However, the lack of opposition in this respect has made Obama one of the most successful presidents in implementing the tools necessary for this kind of stuff to happen. This lack of opposition is a fault of democrats, which seem to have abandoned their stances on this.

Just check the ACLU to see the awesomeness that Obama's US is for people who seriously oppose his policies!


Sebastian wrote:
thejeff wrote:


But, since you do remember and it wouldn't be incriminating, those would be lies.
Yes, but they are lies that are impossible to refute absent mind-reading technology, which is why all the great b#!#@*~*ters claim they can't remember when they're on the stand.

Oh yeah. As I said, that's the difference between b%~*!!+* and a principled stand.

I may have a soft spot for this kind of thing partly because I'm so fond of Pete Seeger's testimony before HUAC. He, unlike many others, both refused to name names or to take the fifth.
When asked if he had served the Communist Party by entertaining at their functions, he replied

Quote:
I have sung for Americans of every political persuasion, and I am proud that I never refuse to sing to an audience, no matter what religion or color of their skin, or situation in life. I have sung in hobo jungles, and I have sung for the Rockefellers, and I am proud that I have never refused to sing for anybody. That is the only answer I can give along that line.
Quote:
I decline to discuss, under compulsion, where I have sung, and who has sung my songs, and who else has sung with me, and the people I have known. I love my country very dearly, and I greatly resent this implication that some of the places that I have sung and some of the people that I have known, and some of my opinions, whether they are religious or philosophical, or I might be a vegetarian, make me any less of an American. I will tell you about my songs, but I am not interested in telling you who wrote them, and I will tell you about my songs, and I am not interested in who listened to them. . . .


Stop snitchin'!: 2


Stop Snitchin'!: 3


Stop Snitchin'!: 4


Thiago Cardozo wrote:


Never fear my purple hoofed fella, I'm here to explain to you what transpires in this discussion, as it appears you got yourself confused while running around, and has been unable to properly understand what is in debate! Our dear Comrade fella appears to be more on the spot, so that's a initial guideline for you. Do not meander!

What is in discussion here is how the extension of state powers to confront "terror" have been influencing people's lives. An extension which was initiated with Bush and has continued under Obama. The coordination of NYPD with the FBI in order to choke the OWS movement for instance <--- ; the war on whistleblowers; the treatment of Bradley...

As offensive as I find most of this stuff, I would like to point out that it's not really so much an extension of federal powers as the retraction of the temporary curtailment of them in the 70s. Mostly as a result of reaction to the findings of the Church commission.

The rollback didn't start too long after that.

Before then, the investigations of the civil rights and anti-war movements that prompted the Church Commission, the persecution of communists after WWII, the persecution of anarchists, communists and pacifists for most of the early 20th century, etc, etc. The list goes on.

We've been here before. We've fought this fight before. In some ways, the tools to fight it are far better now.

Taldor

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Stop Snitchin'!: 3

Har du fatt mig svartlistad från Wholefoods Comrade Anklebiter?

One of the guys from video 4 goes on star in Lillehammer which is also about an informant. The guy in Springsteen's band.


Stop Snitchin'!: 5


Stop Snitchin'!: 6


Stop Snitchin'!: 7

Man, I can do this all night.


Well this thread is going smashingly.


Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
The guy in Springsteen's band.

"The guy in Springsteen's band"?!?

That's Little Stevie, mo'fo!


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Well this thread is going smashingly.

I like it so far.

1 to 50 of 1,595 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.