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

RPG Superstar 2015

Living under Obama's presidency


Off-Topic Discussions

951 to 1,000 of 1,595 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | next > last >>

Right onsssss.


Turin the Mad wrote:
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?

It's based on the school, but a lot of them make it very clear that in order to be successful you will need to concentrate full-time on your studies. Law school, particularly during your first year, involves a pretty intense workload.

The prohibition on summer positions likely exists because many schools place an emphasis (or requirement) on obtaining legal internships during your second or third years of law school, and those internships typically take place during the summer.

Law school is a pretty shaky bet right now due to the high cost of attending combined with the relatively overcrowded job market for lawyers (particularly inexperienced lawyers). That said, if you want to go into politics an education in law is a big help.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My general rule of thumb is real jobs are taxed as income and require you to do something. Fake jobs do not require you to do anything and are typically taxed as capital gains.


FOr Anklebiter:
George Obama


TriOmegaZero wrote:
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. :)

While McCain did serve in the military, he doesn't really come from humble roots. His father and grandfather were both admirals and there's a southern plantation in the family somewhere.


thejeff wrote:

While McCain did serve in the military, he doesn't really come from humble roots. His father and grandfather were both admirals and there's a southern plantation in the family somewhere.

Royalty. Admiralty. A lion god of war.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Turin the Mad wrote:
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
...

What do you consider to be a real job?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
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!!!

Hunh thats awfully weird taht Gary Johnson would have a man executed without a trial. Oh wait, he didnt. You fail.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:


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.

First of all, those other issues youve raised have absolutely nothing to do with the Presidency. So no, they dont really count for much when deciding who the president should be. Unless they are both so gung ho for the executive over-reach that they decide that the president should decide them. So because I like my presidents priorities to include not creating more terrorists and not imprisoning his/her subjects without trial, you consider me monstrous. Im fine with that. Just know that I consider you monstrous because you do not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:
meatrace wrote:
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!!!

Hunh thats awfully weird taht Gary Johnson would have a man executed without a trial. Oh wait, he did. You fail.

Some don't approve of the death penalty. Especially when applied in as biased a fashion as in the US.


LazarX wrote:


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.

You miss the point entirely. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE NEEDED. A signature strike targets people who look like they might be up to no good. Its basically the same as the NYPDs stop and frisk, except instead of stopping and frisking, they bomb and then bomb some more when medics show up.

Allegedly, of course, since the whole thing is done in secret and doesnt officially exist.


thejeff wrote:

[

Some don't approve of the death penalty. Especially when applied in as biased a fashion as in the US.

I am one of those who doesnt approve. But I sleep better at night, knowing that he had a trial. (two of them in this case)


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

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.

As I recall, you also called for violently sodomising septuagenarians with garden tools before too ;)


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:


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.

First of all, those other issues youve raised have absolutely nothing to do with the Presidency. So no, they dont really count for much when deciding who the president should be. Unless they are both so gung ho for the executive over-reach that they decide that the president should decide them. So because I like my presidents priorities to include not creating more terrorists and not imprisoning his/her subjects without trial, you consider me monstrous. Im fine with that. Just know that I consider you monstrous because you do not.
Seriously?
Quote:
energy investment, gay rights, education, handling the budget, immigration, military spending, separation of church and state

Absolutely nothing to do with the presidency?

The President is required by law to propose a budget. He can sign or veto any legislation Congress passes on any of those items. Various departments in the executive branch will handle many of those and other issues based on both presidential direction and the decisions of his appointees. The president also appoints, with the consent of Congress, judges who will decide cases dealing with these and other issues.
That's only the official duties, ignoring the President's immense influence on what is actually taken up by Congress and on the national direction as a whole. No one has a bigger bully pulpit.

Thanks for reminding me just how far out there libertarians are. Sometimes I forget.

Liberty's Edge

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

Also telling is the Freudian slip of subjects. The President has constituents or citizens, not subjects.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
LazarX wrote:


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.

You miss the point entirely. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE NEEDED. A signature strike targets people who look like they might be up to no good. Its basically the same as the NYPDs stop and frisk, except instead of stopping and frisking, they bomb and then bomb some more when medics show up.

Allegedly, of course, since the whole thing is done in secret and doesnt officially exist.

Yeah, it is confirmed. LazarX has no idea what Signature Strikes are.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:

[

Some don't approve of the death penalty. Especially when applied in as biased a fashion as in the US.
I am one of those who doesnt approve. But I sleep better at night, knowing that he had a trial. (two of them in this case)

Hypocrite. Stop excusing murder.

Dedicated Voter 2013

FreeholdDM: I said 'some people'.

Personally, Krensky's rule of thumb is a good one. :)

Now, all I need to figure out is how to get on the 'not a real job' side of the making money equation without becoming a criminal in the process... hrmmmmmmm ....

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Turin the Mad wrote:

FreeholdDM: I said 'some people'.

Personally, Krensky's rule of thumb is a good one. :)

Now, all I need to figure out is how to get on the 'not a real job' side of the making money equation without becoming a criminal in the process... hrmmmmmmm ....

Since you are not a member of the lucky spermatozoa club, not much.

Also, please note that my definition of real job includes lawyers, doctors, athletes, teachers, actors, a lot of bankers, and so on.

It doesn't include most upper management positions where you get a "compensation package" rather then a salary and benefits.

Dedicated Voter 2013

Krensky wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

FreeholdDM: I said 'some people'.

Personally, Krensky's rule of thumb is a good one. :)

Now, all I need to figure out is how to get on the 'not a real job' side of the making money equation without becoming a criminal in the process... hrmmmmmmm ....

Since you are not a member of the lucky spermatozoa club, not much.

Drat!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:


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.

Hmmm, should I be pleased that my posts are labelled "comedic" or insulted that they're labelled "idiotic?"

Pfft, at least I know what a signature strike is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:

[

Some don't approve of the death penalty. Especially when applied in as biased a fashion as in the US.
I am one of those who doesnt approve. But I sleep better at night, knowing that he had a trial. (two of them in this case)
Hypocrite. Stop excusing murder.

Except when it's NATO bombing Libyan babies, then it's okay.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

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.

As I recall, you also called for violently sodomising septuagenarians with garden tools before too ;)

Consenting adults...


Signature Strike?

Isn't that where Obama has a drone sign a bill for him while he is out of the country? ;D


3 people marked this as a favorite.

No, a signature strike is kind of like that scene in Full Metal Jacket: if they run, they're VC; if they stand still, they're well-trained VC.

I know, I know, you were joking.

Obama's First Drone Strike

Gary Johnson might take up killing babies in his spare time, but Obama's been doing it since 2009.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Except when it's NATO bombing Libyan babies, then it's okay.

You miss the point of my (I thought obviously satirical) rant.

You can't use the reasoning that says:

1)I don't vote for murderers.
2)Obama is a murderer (using cherry-picked rhetorical definition of murder)
3)I won't vote for Obama.

And then vote for Johnson. Johnson is every bit a murderer under a different yet valid rhetorical definition of murder. You can argue "yeah, but..." and examine mitigating circumstances, but to do so and then deny that leeway in moral scrutiny to Obama is unfair.

But this is what absolutist ideologies lead to, this precise sort of reductio ad absurdum argument. If someone wants to say that being anti-murder, and that that is the defining issue of their ballot, it should be clear that even this is a shades of grey issue. You (or TWK) may think Gary Johnson is a stand up fella. Heck, I've professed a strong personal liking for the guy. But the truth is that, when given power, hard decisions have to be made.

If Obama wins, and especially if he is followed into office with a wave of new Democratic blood, I predict it will be the downfall of the Republican party as we know it. There will likely be a split between the "liberty" wing and the social conservative religious reich, once and for all. And the death of the Republican party is the only way I see real progress happening, since the rest of us can then focus on molding the Democratic party to a more progressive bent.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
First of all, those other issues youve raised have absolutely nothing to do with the Presidency.

The issues I raised are:

  • Energy Investment - This is a budget matter, and is therefore under the guidance of the President; just as we saw any number of clean energy projects receive Federal support under Obama's stimulus package, the next President will have the ability and responsibility of directing the nation's energy policy.
  • Gay rights - The responsibility to defend federal law in court rests with the Executive Branch under the President's direction, which is why he was able to direct his office to not defend DOMA. Furthermore, the President appoints Supreme Court justices, who will be instrumental in deciding the future of gay rights in the country.
  • Education - Obviously a budget issue, and therefore obviously affected by the office of the President.
  • Handling the budget - I don't think it's even necessary to touch this one.
  • Immigration - Immigration policy is enforced by the Executive Branch at the direction of the President. Furthermore, the President and his officers have the responsibility of conducting all foreign diplomatic relations.
  • Military spending - Not only is this a budget issue, but it also involves the military forces that report directly to the President.
  • Separation of church and state - This is a civil rights issue, and is therefore vulnerable to changes in the Supreme Court. The next President will likely appoint more than one new Supreme Court justice.

I could have kept going, but I really don't think it's necessary. To claim that the above issues have nothing to do with the Presidency is nonsense. It doesn't stand up to even the barest of scrutiny. Only someone with no conception of the influence or powers of the office of the President could believe that the above issues are completely unaffected by the man in charge.

Quote:
So no, they dont really count for much when deciding who the president should be. Unless they are both so gung ho for the executive over-reach that they decide that the president should decide them.

It is possible to influence something in a fundamental and significant way without unilaterally deciding it.

Quote:
So because I like my presidents priorities to include not creating more terrorists and not imprisoning his/her subjects without trial, you consider me monstrous. Im fine with that. Just know that I consider you monstrous because you do not.

Revise your standpoint to fall within the bounds of reality. Then we can continue this conversation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dismissing fears based off historical evidence of mankind's stupidity and the corrupting power of authority is going out of bounds with reality.

The one needing their head checked here is you, Scott. Life is not all sunshine and rainbows, unless you're posting now while completely stoned.

And for all the good a president can do, so too can he or she abuse that power, twist it to his/her own ends and ruin everything for everyone around them.


Icyshadow wrote:

Dismissing fears based off historical evidence of mankind's stupidity and the corrupting power of authority is going out of bounds with reality.

The one needing their head checked here is you, Scott. Life is not all sunshine and rainbows, unless you're posting now while completely stoned.

He's not. He's dismissing the idea that the President has nothing to do with any issues besides the war on terror.

And properly so, because that's ludicrous.


I added a line to the post you quoted.

With great power comes great responsibility.

That, or said power being abused for personal gain.


Icyshadow wrote:

I added a line to the post you quoted.

With great power comes great responsibility.

That, or said power being abused for personal gain.

Which has what to do with anything?

I mean I get the libertarian argument that government shouldn't be able to do anything because it might do something bad, but that's completely different than the "issues youve raised have absolutely nothing to do with the Presidency."

Even if you think in a perfect world they shouldn't, in the world we live in they do. Some of them are Constitutionally spelled out.


If you can't put two and two together, I'll just not bother trying to explain my point.

Better to just hope that my friends leave in time before the US become a place ruled by a dictator.


Which will happen because Obama submits a budget? Or appoints a judge who rules on same-sex marriage? Or ....?


Those are things he does for public support.

What he does on the side-lines is the thing to worry about.

You do know he didn't stop the NDAA from being signed in the end.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Also telling is the Freudian slip of subjects. The President has constituents or citizens, not subjects.

It was no Freudian slip, it was very much deliberate. If we lie to Congress, its a crime. If Congress lies to us, its politics. If we have a secret kill list and act upon it, its murder. If the President does, its fighting terrorists. Our political-corporate class is not bound by the same rule of law of us. They are not leaders, they are rulers. We are not constituents, we are subjects.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


Seriously?
Quote:
energy investment, gay rights, education, handling the budget, immigration, military spending, separation of church and state

Absolutely nothing to do with the presidency?

The President is required by law to propose a budget. He can sign or veto any legislation Congress passes on any of those items. Various departments in the executive branch will handle many of those and other issues based on both presidential direction and the decisions of his appointees. The president also appoints, with the consent of Congress, judges...

Ok, Lets go one by one here, the budget , while proposed by the President, is ultimately passed by Congress. So not really his purview.

Gay equality-Ultimately both agree that its up to the states. I disagree.
Education & Energy Investment-part of the budget so not really applicable, but they do get to appoint the head of the dept of education. Betcha both will appoint someone who is affliated with a heavy campaign donor, rather than someone who is best for the job.
Immigration-Obama has deported more than anyone else, IIRC. How will Romney be any different?
Military Spending-Part of the budget, so not really applicable. I betcha that spending in 2013 will be higher than 2012 and that spending in 2014 will be higher in 2014 than 2013, no matter which is elected.
Seperation of Church and State-I wasnt aware that the President could do anything about this.

Edit-There is the issue of appointing judges, but both will appoint judges that I disagree with. For different reasons to be sure, but either way its a wash for me.

Keep telling me why I shouldnt keep voting third party. Please. And Ill keep wondering why you think this stuff is more important than not killing people.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mostly reject that Im a monster because I refuse to condone the police state that will increase with either major candidate or the secret killings that will increase with either major candidate. If Im a monster because those are most important to me, so be it. I think that anyone who doesnt consider those to be the most important to be a monster, as well.

Edit- this is the last I'll be posting here. Its devolved into each of us calling each other monsters. The election will be over soon. Nothing will change.

Although, Scott, you might have convinced me to not go third party. I might go Romney just so that the democrats can go back to pretending that they want to end these wars, demanding that we stand up for civil liberties, and feigning disgust over corporate welfare. But no, not really.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
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. :)

While McCain did serve in the military, he doesn't really come from humble roots. His father and grandfather were both admirals and there's a southern plantation in the family somewhere.

The shenanigans that McCain pulled during his service would have gotten him drummed out of the Force on several occasions if it wasn't for his family connections.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Also telling is the Freudian slip of subjects. The President has constituents or citizens, not subjects.
It was no Freudian slip, it was very much deliberate. If we lie to Congress, its a crime. If Congress lies to us, its politics. If we have a secret kill list and act upon it, its murder. If the President does, its fighting terrorists. Our political-corporate class is not bound by the same rule of law of us. They are not leaders, they are rulers. We are not constituents, we are subjects.

Uh huh.

So, do you think doubling down on the libertarian rhetoric makes you seem more or less rational?


Krensky wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Also telling is the Freudian slip of subjects. The President has constituents or citizens, not subjects.
It was no Freudian slip, it was very much deliberate. If we lie to Congress, its a crime. If Congress lies to us, its politics. If we have a secret kill list and act upon it, its murder. If the President does, its fighting terrorists. Our political-corporate class is not bound by the same rule of law of us. They are not leaders, they are rulers. We are not constituents, we are subjects.

Uh huh.

So, do you think doubling down on the libertarian rhetoric makes you seem more or less rational?

Yeah. I mean really. We are subjects, they are rulers, but voting for the libertarian candidate will solve everything.

If it's all as much of a con game as some seem to think, if the two major parties are in cahoots to just keep swapping power back and forth with the same agenda, then at best they only allow the third parties to exist because they know they won't affect anything. At worst, they're part of the scam too.


Krensky wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Also telling is the Freudian slip of subjects. The President has constituents or citizens, not subjects.
It was no Freudian slip, it was very much deliberate. If we lie to Congress, its a crime. If Congress lies to us, its politics. If we have a secret kill list and act upon it, its murder. If the President does, its fighting terrorists. Our political-corporate class is not bound by the same rule of law of us. They are not leaders, they are rulers. We are not constituents, we are subjects.

Uh huh.

So, do you think doubling down on the libertarian rhetoric makes you seem more or less rational?

Uh huh. Please tell me what I said here that is untrue?


thejeff wrote:


Yeah. I mean really. We are subjects, they are rulers, but voting for the libertarian candidate will solve everything.
If it's all as much of a con game as some seem to think, if the two major parties are in cahoots to just keep swapping power back and forth with the same agenda, then at best they only allow the third parties to exist because they know they won't affect anything. At worst, they're part of the scam too.

Please point out to me where I said that voting for the libertarian candidate will solve everything. Please, please do so. Please tell me where Ive said that the two parties are in cahoots. Please, I beg you, tell me where. (although they are in cahoots over who gets into debates, but that really has nothing to do over policy.)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Krensky wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Also telling is the Freudian slip of subjects. The President has constituents or citizens, not subjects.
It was no Freudian slip, it was very much deliberate. If we lie to Congress, its a crime. If Congress lies to us, its politics. If we have a secret kill list and act upon it, its murder. If the President does, its fighting terrorists. Our political-corporate class is not bound by the same rule of law of us. They are not leaders, they are rulers. We are not constituents, we are subjects.

Uh huh.

So, do you think doubling down on the libertarian rhetoric makes you seem more or less rational?

Uh huh. Please tell me what I said here that is untrue?

Pretty much all of it in general, but thee are plenty of exceptions and fiddly wonky bits that you'll use to support your delusion/rhetorical islet, so why bother?


uh hunh. whatever helps you sleep at night. If thats calling me delusional within the exact same sentence where you admit that there are exceptions that prove it true, so be it.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Krensky wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Also telling is the Freudian slip of subjects. The President has constituents or citizens, not subjects.
It was no Freudian slip, it was very much deliberate. If we lie to Congress, its a crime. If Congress lies to us, its politics. If we have a secret kill list and act upon it, its murder. If the President does, its fighting terrorists. Our political-corporate class is not bound by the same rule of law of us. They are not leaders, they are rulers. We are not constituents, we are subjects.

Uh huh.

So, do you think doubling down on the libertarian rhetoric makes you seem more or less rational?

Uh huh. Please tell me what I said here that is untrue?

They are not leaders, they are rulers. We are not constituents, we are subjects.


thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Krensky wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Also telling is the Freudian slip of subjects. The President has constituents or citizens, not subjects.
It was no Freudian slip, it was very much deliberate. If we lie to Congress, its a crime. If Congress lies to us, its politics. If we have a secret kill list and act upon it, its murder. If the President does, its fighting terrorists. Our political-corporate class is not bound by the same rule of law of us. They are not leaders, they are rulers. We are not constituents, we are subjects.

Uh huh.

So, do you think doubling down on the libertarian rhetoric makes you seem more or less rational?

Uh huh. Please tell me what I said here that is untrue?
They are not leaders, they are rulers. We are not constituents, we are subjects.

Besides, you can say whatever you want to "Congress" as long as you're not under oath, and they can't do a thing about it. If a member of congress lies under oath, they can be charged perjury, just like any common citizen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If I lie to congress under oath, you are correct, I will be charged with perjury. Do I really need to post links of times that congressmen have lied under oath and got away with it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Krensky wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Also telling is the Freudian slip of subjects. The President has constituents or citizens, not subjects.
It was no Freudian slip, it was very much deliberate. If we lie to Congress, its a crime. If Congress lies to us, its politics. If we have a secret kill list and act upon it, its murder. If the President does, its fighting terrorists. Our political-corporate class is not bound by the same rule of law of us. They are not leaders, they are rulers. We are not constituents, we are subjects.

Uh huh.

So, do you think doubling down on the libertarian rhetoric makes you seem more or less rational?

Uh huh. Please tell me what I said here that is untrue?
They are not leaders, they are rulers. We are not constituents, we are subjects.

Im not sure if we have the same definitions then. To me, if the rule of law only applies to me and not the political class, then yes, they are rulers and we are subjects.

951 to 1,000 of 1,595 << first < prev | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 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.