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

1,551 to 1,595 of 1,595 << first < prev | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

murdering children is not okay. ever.


Freehold DM wrote:
murdering children is not okay. ever.

Abortion?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
murdering children is not okay. ever.
Abortion?

I had one last week, but thank you for offering.

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Killing children over there isn't as bad as over here, kids here are coddled, kids there are not, and often take up arms or walk bombs right up to soldiers, counting on americans to hesitate.

I was in the military, this was one of the things we got talked to death about, all the kids that would carry bombs hidden under clothes or even in their teddy bear if they had one. It is not pretty but their idea of kids does not match ours, and over there using kids is an acceptable tactic, so are you willing to die and let your buddies die, because of a kid that is going to die anyway?

This is about the stupidest thing I've seen posted on these boards, and that's counting a whole lot of stupid.

First, we're not talking about a combat zone where soldiers are at risk. The only people dying are the ones getting rockets coming in out of the blue on them. The kids we're talking about are being killed by some guy guiding a drone by remote who's sitting safely miles away and aren't supposed to be targets. The government denies they're even dying. Second, you're making sweeping generalizations about cultures. Saying that we love and coddle our kids while "they" don't think twice about using them as weapons, is ridiculous.

Our soldiers have it rough in Afghanistan, no doubt, and we should be getting them out of that quagmire, but that doesn't mean we should be pumping rockets into civilians to kill suspected terrorists.

Lantern Lodge

You took my statement as a little too general.

It is a common thing over there, but even I don't think it's almost every kid. I am just saying that don't go screaming murder for no reason other then the dead kids age.

Besides whatever we can find out from media and such (very untrustworthy sources IMO) there is likely a lot of info that we cannot get, and justified or not, calling soldiers out on killing children is not fair when your watching from a distance with limited intel while they are in an area where kids are known to be threats, even if only sometimes.

Besides, it's war, people get hurt, the more you worry about civilians, the more your enemy can use them as shields. Why do you think so much fighting takes place in cities? Well sometimes the targets of importance of course, but often there is nothing special behind a location other then because the enemy is willing to sacrifice civilians and they know we aren't, so they attack where they have the most options available to them to succeed, and using terrain (city packed with civilians) where their enemy will reduce fire/hesitate is an advantage for them.

I don't like the idea of civilians being hurt, but trying too hard to avoid civilians hurts us and helps our enemies. I only hope they have actual reasons to attack the targets they attack (and I happen to know of a few methods to determine that, which the civie world knows little or nothing about, don't forget the military has access to things outside the civilian market)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Shadowborn wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Killing children over there isn't as bad as over here, kids here are coddled, kids there are not, and often take up arms or walk bombs right up to soldiers, counting on americans to hesitate.

I was in the military, this was one of the things we got talked to death about, all the kids that would carry bombs hidden under clothes or even in their teddy bear if they had one. It is not pretty but their idea of kids does not match ours, and over there using kids is an acceptable tactic, so are you willing to die and let your buddies die, because of a kid that is going to die anyway?

This is about the stupidest thing I've seen posted on these boards, and that's counting a whole lot of stupid.

First, we're not talking about a combat zone where soldiers are at risk. The only people dying are the ones getting rockets coming in out of the blue on them. The kids we're talking about are being killed by some guy guiding a drone by remote who's sitting safely miles away and aren't supposed to be targets. The government denies they're even dying. Second, you're making sweeping generalizations about cultures. Saying that we love and coddle our kids while "they" don't think twice about using them as weapons, is ridiculous.

Our soldiers have it rough in Afghanistan, no doubt, and we should be getting them out of that quagmire, but that doesn't mean we should be pumping rockets into civilians to kill suspected terrorists.

The era where wars are formally declared and armies go marching off into a nice clean area to duke it out is over. In fact, it never happened. It's always brought collateral damage to a large group of schmucks whose only crime was being in the wrong place. What has happened in more recent years is that effective actions can be done by smaller and smaller groups which makes defeating them that much more problematic, that much more of a dirty job as these smaller groups now pretty much are interlocked with civilian populations.

Further complicating the issue is that you've got a mix of actions which are clearly justified, such as taking out Bin Laden, and motivations which are far more commercial in nature, such as building the Trans Afghanistan oil line, and regime change which was engineered to make that happen.

I unlike many others have no illusions about Obama or the Democrats. I'm fully aware that they serve many of the same masters as their Republican and Libertarian counterparts. It's just that Afghanistan was not the only issue on my agenda when I went to the polls last Election Day. I had reasons for voting the way I did that quite frankly, have nothing to do with what's going on in that area of the planet. Nor am I convinced that either candidate would be making any different moves in policy regarding that area. No matter who's President the stakes in that region pretty much remain the same.


LazarX wrote:
I unlike many others have no illusions about Obama or the Democrats. I'm fully aware that they serve many of the same masters as their Republican and Libertarian counterparts. It's just that Afghanistan was not the only issue on my agenda when I went to the polls last Election Day. I had reasons for voting the way I did that quite frankly, have nothing to do with what's going on in that area of the planet. Nor am I convinced that either candidate would be making any different moves in policy regarding that area. No matter who's President the stakes in that region pretty much remain the same.

I completely agree with sentences 1, 2 and 5. I partially agree with 6, but would have ended with a call for international proletarian socialist revolution.

Vive le Galt!


Freehold DM wrote:
murdering children is not okay. ever.

You know, I kinda feel like a sap for favoriting this, but sometimes I guess you just have to re-state the obvious.

EDIT:

Oh, unless it's Anastasia Romanoff.


Obama working towards a surveillance society


Irontruth wrote:
I want to live under this Obama.

And I want to live under this one.

Ahh those heady halycon days when our rulers paid lip service to habeas corpus.


Scott Betts wrote:


With that in mind, then, how many bad wars has Obama started?

Conversely, How many bad wars has Obama ended? Before you answer, do remember that the withdrawal date in Iraq was set by Dubya, and that was only achieved in spite of Obama, not because of him.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I want to live under this Obama.

And I want to live under this one.

Ahh those heady halycon days when our rulers paid lip service to habeas corpus.

Wow, there's that Magna Carta thing again. I thought only rules lawyers like Chomsky brought that up.


meatrace wrote:


The lying is what bothered me more than anything though, it's true.

You must have really hated our war in Libya, then. Unless you really think that our "no-fly zone" involved shooting down flying tanks, flying residences, flying airfields, etc etc. Man, those Libyans sure can make anything fly.

meatrace wrote:
I often wonder how quickly world leaders might find peaceful solutions if it were feasible to each assassinate one another without the lives of the citizenry being endangered...

So after Joe Biden shut down the debate in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, you'd be ok if he* would have been assassinated?

*Not to single out Biden, just making a point.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
murdering children is not okay. ever.

You know, I kinda feel like a sap for favoriting this, but sometimes I guess you just have to re-state the obvious.

EDIT:

Oh, unless it's Anastasia Romanoff.

There never was any conclusive evidence to back the claim of the woman who said she was the sole survivor of the execution of the Romanoff family.

Interesting fun fact. Czar Nicholas was cousin to Britain's King George, who refused his request for aid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

I don't even understand why anyone is bothering here. The right wingers don't even realize that there ARE people on the left who think Obama is a P.O.S., and the "lefties" here would be crying bloody murder if Bush were still in office and this crap was still going on.

This thread is a prefect example of why American "liberalism" is a joke.

Your complaining is one dimensional and boring.
Yeah, HD, you got to change it up every once and a while. Like, say, preaching nonviolence to the oppressed and then condoning NATO airstrikes that kill children.

Exactly, You need to get on the cognitive dissonance bandwagon. Cmon aboard, we're getting ready to put Congressional pressure on the President while simultaneously applauding the President for ignoring Congress! (this goes for you Republicans circa 2000-2008, too!)

Andoran

Irontruth wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

I don't even understand why anyone is bothering here. The right wingers don't even realize that there ARE people on the left who think Obama is a P.O.S., and the "lefties" here would be crying bloody murder if Bush were still in office and this crap was still going on.

This thread is a prefect example of why American "liberalism" is a joke.

Your complaining is one dimensional and boring.

As is some people's mindless support of the douchebag, but, you know, whatever.

Andoran

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

I don't even understand why anyone is bothering here. The right wingers don't even realize that there ARE people on the left who think Obama is a P.O.S., and the "lefties" here would be crying bloody murder if Bush were still in office and this crap was still going on.

This thread is a prefect example of why American "liberalism" is a joke.

Your complaining is one dimensional and boring.
Yeah, HD, you got to change it up every once and a while. Like, say, preaching nonviolence to the oppressed and then condoning NATO airstrikes that kill children.

Eh, it never gets old.

Sorry if protesting the wars isn't the hipster/geek way if the Messiah is calling the shots.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
meatrace wrote:


The lying is what bothered me more than anything though, it's true.

You must have really hated our war in Libya, then. Unless you really think that our "no-fly zone" involved shooting down flying tanks, flying residences, flying airfields, etc etc. Man, those Libyans sure can make anything fly.

Yes, excellent point, Comrade Knife. Not to mention the African mercenaries, the viagra-fuelled mass rape, the "genocide" Qadaffi was allegedly committing, etc., etc.

But I'm going to drop Libya because I've already done to it death. Maybe even in this thread, I don't remember.

I reserve the right to change my mind if someone gets snarky with me, though.


Obama, the Fiscal Cliff, Michigan and some dude has stolen my penchant for the word "plutocrat."

And I think he teaches at Citizen Meatrace's school. (?)


Ex professor at my future school but yes. I want to say he's written for The Progressive (founded and published here and where I may end up working).


Woops. It even says "was."


houstonderek wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

I don't even understand why anyone is bothering here. The right wingers don't even realize that there ARE people on the left who think Obama is a P.O.S., and the "lefties" here would be crying bloody murder if Bush were still in office and this crap was still going on.

This thread is a prefect example of why American "liberalism" is a joke.

Your complaining is one dimensional and boring.
As is some people's mindless support of the douchebag, but, you know, whatever.

Since you replied to me, I assume you're talking about me. If not, feel free to specify who you are talking about.

Please point out where I've expressed mindless support of Obama.


houstonderek wrote:
and the "lefties" here

This is the joke: The idea that your no-true-Scotsman "lefty" classification holds any water whatsoever. It refuses to acknowledge the reality that there are plenty of people who hold to ideas that are, in the American sphere of political thought, fairly liberal and left-leaning, and also support President Obama.

You can call us fake liberals all you want; it really doesn't matter. Your arbitrary (it either shifts constantly, or is solidly defined by whatever Obama isn't; take your pick!) definition of what is and isn't a liberal is nonsense. You're part of a fairly insignificant minority that holds left-leaning views and is also unable to appreciate that the reality of the United States' political climate demands a leader like Obama. Until you are capable of understanding that, your one-dimensional political jabs mean very little.

You'd just as soon stone practicality as conservatives.

Lantern Lodge

Yeah, because repeating Hitler's crashing of the economy (to weaken his enemies) is exactly what we need a leader to do right now.

/sarcasm

I haven't kept up with every little thing he does, I got disgusted rather quickly, but the only thing he did that I agree with is nationalizing health records, (which admittidly has several pitfalls and bad points, but is a rare case of the good outweighing the bad).


houstonderek wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

I don't even understand why anyone is bothering here. The right wingers don't even realize that there ARE people on the left who think Obama is a P.O.S., and the "lefties" here would be crying bloody murder if Bush were still in office and this crap was still going on.

This thread is a prefect example of why American "liberalism" is a joke.

Your complaining is one dimensional and boring.
As is some people's mindless support of the douchebag, but, you know, whatever.

in politics as much as anything, you get back what you put out. mindless criticism seeks out mindless support,etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, I know Comrade HD is very often impolite, but he's got a point: restoring Clintonian level capital gains tax rates can only be considered "liberalism" in the US.

I can't pretend that New Hampshire or Massachusetts is anything at all like the rest of the country, but in my experience peddling socialist newspapers in the run-up to the election (haven't done much since Xmastime hit UPS), lefties and liberals that supported Obama did so because they were scared shiznitless of the Republicans. Which, you know, fair enough. But not very many of the lefties and liberals that I spoke with were actually happy with Obama on a gamut of issues ranging from defense of collective bargaining (where was he in Wisconsin? Hanging out with plutocrats!) to foreign policy (dead babies!) to health care (single-payer now! and what's up with this 2018 tax on my employer-paid Cadillac plan?!?).

Now, I will grant that there is a pretty effective self-selecting mechanism involved in that if you are happy with Obama, you probably don't spend much time chatting with the longhair on the streetcorner peddling socialist newspapers. And I realize that I am even more insignificant than Comrade HD.

But we did win 29% of the vote in Washington state running against a bigwig Dem. Yay us.

Spoiler:
Voting is still for ninnies, btw.


Yeah, there's a lot I'm not happy with about Obama. From the left though, I think he's probably the most accessible president since LBJ. Seriously, like Carter gets bashed from the right a bit, but go watch the older PBS duocumentary about him if your memory is vague, his policies and actions are strikingly similar to a 'compassionate conservative' of today.

For example, Guantanamo I think he should have still closed, but I understand how damning it was politically and that using his capitol that early on that would have stalled a lot of efforts. I think on the campaign trail he did a little bit of what Romney did this time, promising to do too much on day one and people decided to remember one of those things closest to their ideals and hold him extremely accountable for it.

Something to consider, his bailout of the auto companies probably helped keep unions alive and kicking that much longer. It didn't strengthen them in any way at all, but if the big three had folded, their unions and all of the suppliers of parts that have unions would have disappeared then and there. Though Michigan is doing whatever it can to try and finish them off now. I doubt McCain would have tried to allow them to survive (the unions) and Romney would have dismantled the companies far enough to void the union contracts and then given them bailout money.

I like Obama. He does not conform to my ideals though. The republicans do scare the s@#@ out of me.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:


I don't like the idea of civilians being hurt, but trying too hard to avoid civilians hurts us and helps our enemies.

If the US care more about not hurting civilian you would have much less enemies.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Yeah, because repeating Hitler's crashing of the economy (to weaken his enemies) is exactly what we need a leader to do right now.

You're done, here. You can come back and talk to us when you've figured out a way to deliver your particular brand of rhetoric without injecting not-so-subtle references to how you believe Obama is literally Hitler.

Conservative ideology is already a national laughing stock. You're just making the situation worse.

I just watched the aftermath of dozens of school kids being murdered due, in part, to a gun-culture mentality buoyed and worshiped by the conservative movement. My tolerance for right-wing ideology is at an all-time low, right now.


Irontruth wrote:


I like Obama. He does not conform to my ideals though. The republicans do scare the s%%* out of me.

I essentially feel the same way.


Scott Betts wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Yeah, because repeating Hitler's crashing of the economy (to weaken his enemies) is exactly what we need a leader to do right now.

You're done, here. You can come back and talk to us when you've figured out a way to deliver your particular brand of rhetoric without injecting not-so-subtle references to how you believe Obama is literally Hitler.

He was done after his 3rd post on this thread. But it was deleted so not everyone realized this. That's the down side to deleted controversial/offensive posts, the person who made them can keep masquerading as reasonable.


thejeff wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Yeah, because repeating Hitler's crashing of the economy (to weaken his enemies) is exactly what we need a leader to do right now.

You're done, here. You can come back and talk to us when you've figured out a way to deliver your particular brand of rhetoric without injecting not-so-subtle references to how you believe Obama is literally Hitler.

He was done after his 3rd post on this thread. But it was deleted so not everyone realized this. That's the down side to deleted controversial/offensive posts, the person who made them can keep masquerading as reasonable.

Now I really wish I had seen it.


Irontruth wrote:
Something to consider, his bailout of the auto companies probably helped keep unions alive and kicking that much longer. It didn't strengthen them in any way at all, but if the big three had folded, their unions and all of the suppliers of parts that have unions would have disappeared then and there. Though Michigan is doing whatever it can to try and finish them off now. I doubt McCain would have tried to allow them to survive (the unions) and Romney would have dismantled the companies far enough to void the union contracts and then given them bailout money.

Let's be clear: the auto bailouts were to prevent the economy from falling into a depression, not to preserve the unions. And they did that by making the workers pay for the gross mismanagement of the Big Three. Which seems to be a leitmotif running throughout the whole Obama administration, but let's leave that aside for now.

The contract concessions demanded by the Bush and Obama administrations have essentially hollowed out what having a UAW job used to mean. Cost-of-living escalator? Gone. Starting pay cut in half. Retiree health benefits slashed to the bone. Job security measures ripped to shreds. "We must close the gap with Toyota, and we're going to do it by making the workers pay."

A couple of random links:

2009 Ford givebacks

Gregg Shotwell, UAW retiree, on Democracy Now

The Deal That Saved Detroit and Banned Strikes

The UAW tops are just as much to blame as Obama, don't get me wrong. At any time over the past couple of decades they could have tried to do what a union is supposed to and organize the unorganized, but, instead, they sucked up to Iacocca and all the other auto plutocrats so that, by 2008, they were ready, willing and eager to slash contracts so that there is hardly any difference between working a union or non-union gig.

---

As for Obama and Johnson, yeah, probably. Of course, back in the sixties, leftie-liberal types were running around yelling "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" But he did give us the Great Society, after the sixties ghetto riots. Maybe instead of having rallies in front of our Congressman's offices in defense of Medicare and Social Security, we should riot? Sounds good to me.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Much about Comrade Obama supporting big business in favr of our socialist friends.

Serious question, I'm not asking behind the mask of Lord Dice or anything.

Do you think the problem is the individual currently holding the office of President, or that unions have lost all of their power in the last 40 - 60 years? Personally, I think even my ideal candidate would have to come to terms with running the actual government once she was elected to office. Do you personally know of a candidate in the last election who would have done everything to your approval? I'm really asking, cause (4 years out now) if you can recommend someone, like, for real, I'll vote for them. (I reserve the right to change my mind within the next 4 years.)

A lot of this may be sour grapes. I work in the food service industry, and never mind unions, we don't even get minimum wage; we could provide such good service to our customers that they might slide us an extra ten dollars, and that's stealing from the IRS or something.

Just to clarify, if there was a nation-wide food service workers union that guaranteed minimum wage and demanded all tips as dues, I would go on strike this instant.

Edit: the sentence structure got away from me there. My point was, I voted for Obama, but definitely checked the "Maybe it's time to settle" box. Are there any candidates you would willfully endorse?


Hold on a second, Comrade Dice.

There you go.

Vive le Galt!

[Goes to smoke a cigarette and think.]

Lantern Lodge

Nicos wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:


I don't like the idea of civilians being hurt, but trying too hard to avoid civilians hurts us and helps our enemies.

If the US care more about not hurting civilian you would have much less enemies.

First I am talking about during a war not before the war starts.

Second, it doesn't really hold true when dealing with people who think you should die because you don't follow their religion.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Let's be clear: the auto bailouts were to prevent the economy from falling into a depression,

Do you actually believe that or are you just stating the official reasons?

Letting them die is called free market, and then entrapaneurs would fill in the gap left behind really quicky, so the economic drop would be short-lived and then we would have a few smaller corps to replace them and possibly some larger corps not previously in the industry might expand into it.

@ Scott Betts
I am not trying to say he will be a second Hitler, only that he is using some similar techniques and we all know what the last guy used those techniques for.

Obama may or may not become a racist freak, but it is still a move that makes for weakening enemies, perhaps he is doing it for an economic war he plans, who knows but I doubt it's for the good of the US.

Either way, dissagreeing with me doesn't make me unreasonable.

If my difficulty in explaining myself offends you, then I apologize, but it has always been a difficulty, and probably will always be.

@Hitdice
I think both contribute to the problem, not that unions should have anything to with law other then make it easier for the populace to demonstrate (unions are really for increasing employee pay and workplace standards by companies, and companies see employees as neccessary expenses to be reduced when and where possible. Now how can we change that perception? Can't, not without changing to a brand new, never seen before economic system)


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Nicos wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:


I don't like the idea of civilians being hurt, but trying too hard to avoid civilians hurts us and helps our enemies.

If the US care more about not hurting civilian you would have much less enemies.

First I am talking about during a war not before the war starts.

Second, it doesn't really hold true when dealing with people who think you should die because you don't follow their religion.

I think civilian deaths make terrorist groups more numerous than religion.

Lantern Lodge

Perhaps, but I would be more worried about it outside of a combat zone, in a combat zone people know it's dangerous and will grow angry against one side or the other anyway, depending on who they see as resposible for the hostilities, if someone thinks the group A is responsible for the war and are the bad guys, then their spouse being killed by group B will drive that person to either drown in grief, support B to end the war before more collatteral casualties occur, run away, or strike out on their own against both A & B. The chances of the supporting A is unlikely, unless they agreed with on some level to begin with, in which case they would B as the bad guys anyway.


Hitdice wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Much about Comrade Obama supporting big business in favr of our socialist friends.
Serious question, I'm not asking behind the mask of Lord Dice or anything.

So that cigarette turned into [bubble bubble bubble] and I sat down and wrote an even more rambling post than the one I was responding to and then hit the Cancel button.

I'll come back to this later, maybe tomorrow, maybe the day after, but, for now, short answer:

No. Voting is for ninnies.

Vive le Galt!


DarkLightHitomi wrote:

@ Scott Betts

I am not trying to say he will be a second Hitler, only that he is using some similar techniques and we all know what the last guy used those techniques for.

LISTEN TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Let's be clear: the auto bailouts were to prevent the economy from falling into a depression,

Do you actually believe that or are you just stating the official reasons?

Letting them die is called free market, and then entrapaneurs would fill in the gap left behind really quicky, so the economic drop would be short-lived and then we would have a few smaller corps to replace them and possibly some larger corps not previously in the industry might expand into it.

I know I shouldn't, but since it would be rude to ignore you:

Were there unofficial reasons for why they did it?

If your answer is that Obama is trying to crash the economy like Hitler did, I won't be responding, but I will be smiling.


Scott Betts wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:

@ Scott Betts

I am not trying to say he will be a second Hitler, only that he is using some similar techniques and we all know what the last guy used those techniques for.
LISTEN TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING

Don't engage. Flag it and move on.


Wow............. scary thread....

I like watching demolition derbies but this one is a little to vicious for me.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Perhaps, but I would be more worried about it outside of a combat zone, in a combat zone people know it's dangerous and will grow angry against one side or the other anyway, depending on who they see as resposible for the hostilities, if someone thinks the group A is responsible for the war and are the bad guys, then their spouse being killed by group B will drive that person to either drown in grief, support B to end the war before more collatteral casualties occur, run away, or strike out on their own against both A & B. The chances of the supporting A is unlikely, unless they agreed with on some level to begin with, in which case they would B as the bad guys anyway.

And what of the people that have no idea why anyone is fighting, only that group B killed their loved ones? Because it seems to me to be whats going on, that most in the tribal areas dont know what a nineleven is.

And its no wonder that we are driving these people to Islamic radicalism. If tomorrow, the "gay menace" (you know the ones that wanna get all uppity and get married and all) bombed the Sears Tower, would interest in the Westboro Baptist Church increase or decrease? Id bet dollars to donuts, it would increase. Just like people are flocking to the radical Muslim sects that say that Americans only are interested in killing Muslims and stealing their resources, after, we, you know, killed them and stole their resources.

Assistant Software Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think this thread has run it's course.

1,551 to 1,595 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.