Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Living under Obama's presidency


Off-Topic Discussions

1,301 to 1,350 of 1,595 << first < prev | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
We can bail out the banks and the auto companies, but not a snack food giant? 18,000 jobs lost, not to mention all the other companies that work with it. But no way is the man going to get on his lady's bad side by helping a junk food business.
I'll believe it when I see it. This is just an extreme case of hard-line anti-union negotiations.

I think the Teamster's would disagree with you.

The Teamsters union is urging the bakers union to hold a secret ballot on whether to continue striking. Citing its financial experts who had access to the company's books, the Teamsters say that Hostess' warning of liquidation is "not an empty threat or a negotiating tactic" but a certain outcome if workers keep striking.


[Hangs head]

Cheliax

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So uh seems like thay may be shooting themselves in the foot there. Since even if other people buy the brand there is no certainty that they will keep there old jobs


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hitdice wrote:


This is a real question, not an insult: Do you think the Democrats have fully shed being the White Man's Party? I think we Old White Dudes still hold a controlling percentage.

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy with the Republicans taking any number of decades, ending in a century, to regroup :P

Old White Dudes in America hold a controlling percentage of just about everything. But the Democrats used to explicitly run on being the White Man's Party. It was on their party propaganda and everything. Far from a horrible rhetorical flourish, it was heavily reflected in their policy program too. Considering the party literally tore itself in half and conceded an entire region of the country, surrendering the presidency and effective control of Congress in the process in order to back integration, I think they're pretty far over being the white power party.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
[Hangs head]

Solidarity fail.


Actually, looking more closely at this. Hostess is owned by a private equity firm. They've been running up debt and paying themselves huge management fees, as per usual practice. Selling off pieces of the company too.
Hostess is toast no matter what the union does, is my new read. The owners are just trying to squeeze as much cash out of as possible before it dies. Sell off the brands. Keep paying yourself the big fees as long as you can. That's the game.

The strike just lets them lay the blame on the union, instead of where it belongs.

From the Sacremento Bee

Quote:

BCTGM members are well aware that as the company was preparing to file for bankruptcy earlier this year, the then CEO of Hostess was awarded a 300 percent raise (from approximately $750,000 to $2,550,000) and at least nine other top executives of the company received massive pay raises. One such executive received a pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one taking his salary from $375,000 to $656,256.

Over the past 15 months, Hostess workers have seen the company unilaterally end contractually-obligated payments to their pension plan. Despite saving more than $160 million with this action, the company continues to fall deeper and deeper into debt. A mountain of debt and gross mismanagement by a string of failed CEO's with no true experience in the wholesale baking business have left this company unable to compete or survive.


thejeff wrote:
pres man wrote:
We can bail out the banks and the auto companies, but not a snack food giant? 18,000 jobs lost, not to mention all the other companies that work with it. But no way is the man going to get on his lady's bad side by helping a junk food business.
I'll believe it when I see it. This is just an extreme case of hard-line anti-union negotiations.

Yeah ,I had heard that too .Im surprised the Goblin didnt-


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'll believe it when I see it. This is just an extreme case of hard-line anti-union negotiations.

Hee hee!

Didn't mean to bring on an economics debate. I sometimes forget not everybody sees the world the same way I see it.

Yeah, I was only interested in the extreme union-busting angle. I haven't read any articles, but The Black Goblin says the company is going for broke. The union already made concessions the last two contracts, but the company now says they better offer up more or they're liquidating. Meanwhile, of course, the CEO and the board all pocketed hefty bonuses and pay raises this year.

The only answer, of course, is international proletarian socialist revolution.

Vive le Galt!

...

*ahem* never mind ....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
[Hangs head]

w.t.f?

Anklebiter, what is happening here ?


I knew I smelled a rat when I read that story. Yeah, it's basically wall street fat-cats getting rich and pinning the blame on the union for not taking pay cuts.

From what I hear, pretty deep pay cuts. They're probably better off getting laid off and being on unemployment a couple years since, in that same time, the business will be sold off anyway.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hitdice wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy with the Republicans taking any number of decades, ending in a century, to regroup :P

I'm not. Their zealous dysfunction is a luxury we can hardly afford. The Democrats don't have a lockdown on the Hill so yes we need both parties sane and functional if the hard work that has to be done is going to be done.


LazarX wrote:
Hitdice wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy with the Republicans taking any number of decades, ending in a century, to regroup :P

I'm not. Their zealous dysfunction is a luxury we can hardly afford. The Democrats don't have a lockdown on the Hill so yes we need both parties sane and functional if the hard work that has to be done is going to be done.

I agree to an extent. I'm more of the opinion that it takes multiple voices to make government work. I may be democratic, but I do not care for the winner-takes-all attitude that seems to be becoming prevalent over the past 12 years. We are America. We need Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals, Moderates, Independents, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, Minarchists, Unaffiliateds, and all sorts of combinations thereof to work. *Out* of many, one, not *over* many, one.


I agree as well that we need multiple voices. If nothing else, entrenched one-party dominance leads to corruption.
On the other hand, I see nothing in the current Republican party that we need. If they need to reinvent themselves completely or wither and be replaced by another, that's fine by me.
In the short run, I see complete Democratic dominance as more likely than a sane functional Republican party.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Hitdice wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy with the Republicans taking any number of decades, ending in a century, to regroup :P

I'm not. Their zealous dysfunction is a luxury we can hardly afford. The Democrats don't have a lockdown on the Hill so yes we need both parties sane and functional if the hard work that has to be done is going to be done.
I agree to an extent. I'm more of the opinion that it takes multiple voices to make government work. I may be democratic, but I do not care for the winner-takes-all attitude that seems to be becoming prevalent over the past 12 years. We are America. We need Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals, Moderates, Independents, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, Minarchists, Unaffiliateds, and all sorts of combinations thereof to work. *Out* of many, one, not *over* many, one.

I don't think you quite understand my point. I say we need more functional voices. The one sane man in a room of nutcases isn't enough to get the job done.

It's not like we haven't had past eras where we had a Congress run by moderately sane Democrats in tandem with moderately sane Republicans. That's what I want restored.

And Winner Takes All isn't new, it's built into the very foundation of how elections are set up. It's just become much more extreme in recent decades.


Obama Bombs the Gaza Strip


LazarX wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Hitdice wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy with the Republicans taking any number of decades, ending in a century, to regroup :P

I'm not. Their zealous dysfunction is a luxury we can hardly afford. The Democrats don't have a lockdown on the Hill so yes we need both parties sane and functional if the hard work that has to be done is going to be done.
I agree to an extent. I'm more of the opinion that it takes multiple voices to make government work. I may be democratic, but I do not care for the winner-takes-all attitude that seems to be becoming prevalent over the past 12 years. We are America. We need Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals, Moderates, Independents, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, Minarchists, Unaffiliateds, and all sorts of combinations thereof to work. *Out* of many, one, not *over* many, one.

I don't think you quite understand my point. I say we need more functional voices. The one sane man in a room of nutcases isn't enough to get the job done.

It's not like we haven't had past eras where we had a Congress run by moderately sane Democrats in tandem with moderately sane Republicans. That's what I want restored.

And Winner Takes All isn't new, it's built into the very foundation of how elections are set up. It's just become much more extreme in recent decades.

I don't disagree, Lazar, but it's on the parties (either one) not to run nut jobs. If the Republicans spend the next century in a Democrat-esque state of disarray because they don't court any vote but the Old White Dudes, I'm fine with that.

Also, not to be snarky, but when is the past era of bi-partisan moderate sanity that you're talking about? I'm honestly not sure it's there to be restored.


Hitdice wrote:


Also, not to be snarky, but when is the past era of bi-partisan moderate sanity that you're talking about? I'm honestly not sure it's there to be restored.

There were three days in 1903. Man, it was great.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:


Also, not to be snarky, but when is the past era of bi-partisan moderate sanity that you're talking about? I'm honestly not sure it's there to be restored.

Well, there's always been partisanship, but the levels we've seen from the Republican Party lately have been extreme. The degree of opposition to even the basic functioning of government is ridiculous. Of course, it's coming from a party who's basic modern tenet is that government can't work, so it shouldn't be too surprising.

The abuse of the filibuster these past 4 years. The lack of willingness to compromise, even when the other party moves 90% of the way toward your position.
In the midst of economic crisis, proclaiming that the most important thing is to make Obama a one-term president.

Andoran

thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


Also, not to be snarky, but when is the past era of bi-partisan moderate sanity that you're talking about? I'm honestly not sure it's there to be restored.

Well, there's always been partisanship, but the levels we've seen from the Republican Party lately have been extreme. The degree of opposition to even the basic functioning of government is ridiculous. Of course, it's coming from a party who's basic modern tenet is that government can't work, so it shouldn't be too surprising.

The abuse of the filibuster these past 4 years. The lack of willingness to compromise, even when the other party moves 90% of the way toward your position.
In the midst of economic crisis, proclaiming that the most important thing is to make Obama a one-term president.

Well said.

Being more interested in blocking anything the Democrats try to do than actually trying to work with them and make the country better is, quite frankly, something of a disgrace.


I bet they're not doing much to stop him from bombing Gaza.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Marc Radle wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


Also, not to be snarky, but when is the past era of bi-partisan moderate sanity that you're talking about? I'm honestly not sure it's there to be restored.

Well, there's always been partisanship, but the levels we've seen from the Republican Party lately have been extreme. The degree of opposition to even the basic functioning of government is ridiculous. Of course, it's coming from a party who's basic modern tenet is that government can't work, so it shouldn't be too surprising.

The abuse of the filibuster these past 4 years. The lack of willingness to compromise, even when the other party moves 90% of the way toward your position.
In the midst of economic crisis, proclaiming that the most important thing is to make Obama a one-term president.

Well said.

Being more interested in blocking anything the Democrats try to do than actually trying to work with them and make the country better is, quite frankly, something of a disgrace.

I have no love for the tactics of the current GOP, but it must be pointed out in fairness that the current GOP learned an awful lot about using the filibuster from Harry Reid himself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I bet they're not doing much to stop him from bombing Gaza.

*sigh*


thunderspirit wrote:


I have no love for the tactics of the current GOP, but it must be pointed out in fairness that the current GOP learned an awful lot about using the filibuster from Harry Reid himself.

Maybe, I'd have to see some numbers. Here's a graph showing cloture statistics. There's been a gradual increase over the years, but actually a drop when Harry Reid became minority leader and a huge spike when Obama took office.

I don't see how Reid can be blamed.

Boehner also deserves blame for the gridlock, but that's partly because he can't control his caucus. Several times he got, in his words, 98% of what he wanted in a compromise, then couldn't deliver the votes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I didn't say Reid was to blame, simply that he was no slouch using the filibuster himself when George W. Bush was in office.

As for Klein's graph, it's informative but hardly indicative of the entire story, since it only plots cloture motions, not actions blocked. Sometimes the most effective tactic is to threaten a filibuster, in the same way a President might threaten a veto.

I am not a fan of the filibuster, no matter who's using it. But Reid's recent denunciation of the tactic rings hollow.


thunderspirit wrote:

I didn't say Reid was to blame, simply that he was no slouch using the filibuster himself when George W. Bush was in office.

As for Klein's graph, it's informative but hardly indicative of the entire story, since it only plots cloture motions, not actions blocked. Sometimes the most effective tactic is to threaten a filibuster, in the same way a President might threaten a veto.

I am not a fan of the filibuster, no matter who's using it. But Reid's recent denunciation of the tactic rings hollow.

Why? He's used in the past, yes. He even argued last session to keep it, in hopes a deal with minority would allow the Senate to work better. Now he admits he was wrong and is willing to support change. Note that he didn't reverse course when the Democrats took control of the Senate, or when Obama took office or even after the first two years of obstruction.

If that makes him an unlikely reformer, it's not in a hypocritical sense, but only in the sense that he's the last person you'd expect to. That in itself speaks to how unprecedented the last two years of obstruction have been.

As for the chart not showing threatened filibusters, you're right. Those would be hard to track since they're often behind the scenes negotiations. Unless you're seriously going to argue that Democrats used them much more previously than the Republicans have the last 4 years, I doubt it changes the picture significantly.


"There is no country on Earth that would tolerate missles raining down on its citizens from outside it's borders"

President Obama 11-18-12.

Hunh. Who woulda thought?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

Technically, the drones fire from within the borders. So it's totally different and stuff. Besides, he obviously wasn't talking about gold-old American missiles but those icky foreign missiles.


Paul Watson wrote:
Technically, the drones fire from within the borders. So it's totally different and stuff. Besides, he obviously wasn't talking about gold-old American missiles but those icky foreign missiles.

Quite possibly manufactured in the USA. It's like the one manufacturing sector still alive and kicking.

Murder never goes out of business.


I'd say it's war that never seems to go out of business.

Has there ever been global peace on the planet in history?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Doesn't mean that shouldn't be a goal.


Of course, but if it's never happened before, what are the odds of it happening now?


Less and less every time someone like you throws your hands up and gives up.


Never said I'd give up on it. I hate violence, but I'm trying to be realistic here about the difficulty of achieving said goal.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:
I'd say it's war that never seems to go out of business.

That's what meatrace said.

Qadira

TheWhiteknife wrote:

"There is no country on Earth that would tolerate missles raining down on its citizens from outside it's borders"

President Obama 11-18-12.

Hunh. Who woulda thought?

So he supports a pakistani response to what he has been doing there?


No, he just admitted he's full of crap like most politicians are nowadays.

Andoran

Icyshadow wrote:
No, he just admitted he's full of crap like most politicians are nowadays.

I'm pretty sure President Obama is just about the least "full-of-crap" politicians around right now.


You....you mean he's a POLITICIAN?!

No...NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

runs crying from thread

Spoiler:
sarcastically, of course


Marc Radle wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
No, he just admitted he's full of crap like most politicians are nowadays.
I'm pretty sure President Obama is just about the least "full-of-crap" politicians around right now.

Oh yeah? Then why did he have Philip of Pokanoket killed?!?

Spoiler:
In reality, I was a little surprised to find this essay in my current read of choice, Irving's The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent.

I didn't realize he was a fraternal member of the Blame America First Association.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Marc Radle wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
No, he just admitted he's full of crap like most politicians are nowadays.
I'm pretty sure President Obama is just about the least "full-of-crap" politicians around right now.

Meh. I trust him marginally more than, say, the man who ran against him, but that's admittedly not saying much. I don't have any illusions that a politician of any ilk gets elected without being essentially full-of-crap.


Little late in the week for this, but more shiznit for Comrade Knife.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hitdice wrote:

I don't disagree, Lazar, but it's on the parties (either one) not to run nut jobs. If the Republicans spend the next century in a Democrat-esque state of disarray because they don't court any vote but the Old White Dudes, I'm fine with that.

Parties wouldn't run nutjobs for office if the citizenry wouldn't vote for them.

Democracy simply can not be expected to function when a predominant slice of the citizenry not only refuses learn but insists on being wilfully ignorant. To the point where they start buying into the idea of government as being a fundamental evil.

If you don't come into the game with the notion that government CAN work,and SHOULD work, then it's game over before the first ballot is counted.

Andoran

meatrace wrote:
Less and less every time someone like you throws your hands up and gives up.

Or someone like you tells Dems war is A OK as long as Bush isn't involved.


houstonderek wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Less and less every time someone like you throws your hands up and gives up.
Or someone like you tells Dems war is A OK as long as Bush isn't involved.

Good thing no one has done that. Least of all me.

I just like honest comparisons between the two, not false equivalency. But it's good to know that you're willing to lie, through your teeth, to my face, just because I'm not ideologically pure. You're a good face for why liberals fail to affect any change.

Bill Maher wrote in HuffPo today that, yeah, now that he won? Time to hold his feet to the fire and make him be the flaming liberal the Republicans keep claiming him to be. Which is essentially what I said had to happen. He has NOTHING to lose, and if he ISN'T more progressive in his second term I think it will be a big problem for Dems in the mid-term, not to mention 2016.

It remains to be seen how the cards will fall for the Republican party after this election cycle. If Obama is half the politician I think he is, he'll take full advantage of that uncertainty and try to broker compromise and perform some genuine reform.

Between you, me, and the wall, I'm half hoping for the "fiscal cliff" since it's the only way we're ever going to get defense cuts we so richly deserve.


If the "grand bargain" or the "fiscal cliff" actually results in substantial defense cuts, I'll, I don't know, eat my hat. (Safe one, I don't wear a hat.)


meatrace wrote:

Bill Maher wrote in HuffPo today that, yeah, now that he won? Time to hold his feet to the fire and make him be the flaming liberal the Republicans keep claiming him to be. Which is essentially what I said had to happen. He has NOTHING to lose, and if he ISN'T more progressive in his second term I think it will be a big problem for Dems in the mid-term, not to mention 2016.

It remains to be seen how the cards will fall for the Republican party after this election cycle. If Obama is half the politician I think he is, he'll take full advantage of that uncertainty and try to broker compromise and perform some genuine reform.

I guess that's fair.


meatrace wrote:

Good thing no one has done that. Least of all me.

I just like honest comparisons between the two, not false equivalency. But it's good to know that you're willing to lie, through your teeth, to my face, just because I'm not ideologically pure. You're a good face for why liberals fail to affect any change.

Bill Maher wrote in HuffPo today that, yeah, now that he won? Time to hold his feet to the fire and make him be the flaming liberal the Republicans keep claiming him to be. Which is essentially what I said had to happen. He has NOTHING to lose, and if he ISN'T more progressive in his second term I think it will be a big problem for Dems in the mid-term, not to mention 2016.

It remains to be seen how the cards will fall for the Republican party after this election cycle. If Obama is half the politician I think he is, he'll take full advantage of that uncertainty and try to broker compromise and perform some genuine reform.

Between you, me, and the wall, I'm half hoping for the "fiscal cliff" since it's the only way we're ever going to get defense cuts we so richly deserve.

I'm not entirely sure how you reconcile "if he ISN'T more progressive in his second term I think it will be a big problem" with "If Obama is half the politician I think he is, he'll take full advantage of that uncertainty and try to broker compromise"

Unless the Republican party is willing to change radically, and they've shown no signs of that yet, any attempts at compromise will again kill hope of progressive action.

I mean, Boehner's offer of compromise on the fiscal cliff is that he's willing to accept some new revenue if it comes through lowering the tax rates.


thejeff wrote:


I'm not entirely sure how you reconcile "if he ISN'T more progressive in his second term I think it will be a big problem" with "If Obama is half the politician I think he is, he'll take full advantage of that uncertainty and try to broker compromise"

Unless the Republican party is willing to change radically, and they've shown no signs of that yet, any attempts at compromise will again kill hope of progressive action.

I mean, Boehner's offer of compromise on the fiscal cliff is that he's willing to accept some new revenue if it comes through lowering the tax rates.

Maybe I'm just not being clear enough. There's a growing schism in the Republican party between the hardlineers (who happen to be in power) and the few remaining moderates. They're saying CRAZY things like "raising taxes on the rich probably won't kill us", and then there's none other than Ben Stein saying that, hey, we need more revenue, dog. The pundits and talking heads are coming around, even if the people under Norquist's thumb aren't.

There's also a lot of them who, for practical reasons, realize they should compromise for the good of their careers if not the country.

Obama should be reaching out to THOSE Republicans RIGHT NOW, making calls, sending fruit baskets, wtf ever. He should also be using the power of the bully pulpit to make it clear to the American people precisely what he is asking for and what is at stake, in numbers not in values and vagaries.

Boener and McConnell are powerful, but not all-powerful.

Obama needs to be AGGRESSIVE. I know he can play hardball, we need to see some of that right the heck now.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
If the "grand bargain" or the "fiscal cliff" actually results in substantial defense cuts, I'll, I don't know, eat my hat. (Safe one, I don't wear a hat.)

Yeah, I think this would actually be good for us in some ways. Probably the only way we'll see anything resembling serious defense cuts.


meatrace wrote:


Bill Maher wrote in HuffPo today that, yeah, now that he won? Time to hold his feet to the fire and make him be the flaming liberal the Republicans keep claiming him to be.

This is the part that I still dont get. So whats the magic plan? How exactly do you (I mean you in the plural sense, not singling you out meatrace) plan on holding his feet to the fire, now that he never ever has to worry about getting re-elected?

1,301 to 1,350 of 1,595 << first < prev | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 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.