I'm Going to go Vote Today


Off-Topic Discussions

201 to 250 of 252 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Fergie wrote:
JurgenV wrote:
Tell that to many that i know to come back from iraq to be insulted and threatened by the occupy groups and their ilk

Really? I mean, you personally know many soldiers who were threatened and insulted? I have never heard of anything like that happening. In fact, in NYC, Occupy seemed to get along with service folks just fine.

This is what soldier/occupy interactions looked like in my nearest occupy.

Didn't hear anything about protesters attacking veterans here in Boston either back when Occupy Boston was active. There was a veterans group that came to join the protest IIRC.


Citizen RV wrote:
Never said all are bad, just said they are the group most likely to hate on the military

Occupy Oakland was pretty rough on vets, too.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Coriat wrote:
Fergie wrote:
JurgenV wrote:
Tell that to many that i know to come back from iraq to be insulted and threatened by the occupy groups and their ilk

Really? I mean, you personally know many soldiers who were threatened and insulted? I have never heard of anything like that happening. In fact, in NYC, Occupy seemed to get along with service folks just fine.

This is what soldier/occupy interactions looked like in my nearest occupy.

Didn't hear anything about protesters attacking veterans here in Boston either back when Occupy Boston was active. There was a veterans group that came to join the protest IIRC.

I imagine that Jurgen will argue that these were exceptions and will have tons of evidence showing Occupy protestors savaging the military. Or simply expect us to accept his statement that they are because some surburbanite flower child wannabe protestors did so in the '60's.


LazarX wrote:
Scott the perception is not entirely unwarranted. Obama was a great candidate, but he was certainly far less willing or able to play the game compared to say, a Bill Clinton.

Let's not pretend that the political climate Obama faces is the same sort that Clinton faces. Hell, Clinton's even outright said as much.

He's the President, not a miracle worker. His powers are constrained by the rest of the federal government, and Republicans have many, many tools at their disposal to curtail that power further. Where previously they would have employed those tools judiciously, they have spent the past six years using everything they can possibly muster to ensure that he accomplishes nothing meaningful, because their goal isn't to govern effectively - it's to annihilate a sitting President's legacy before it's written.

Quote:
For all intents and purposes, the Obama Presidency ended last night. The only real question is how long the Affordable Healthcare Act will survive it.

I don't see any credible threat to the ACA on the horizon. Do you?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Well, it's certainly better than "I voted for Bush II and have been overcompensating for it ever since by telling everybody that doesn't agree with me that they don't understand how the political process works!"

Shall we trot out your political decisions at age 19 as an example of why you overcompensate, Anklebiter? Or have you always been the firebrand that you are?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Like facts have ever changed the mind of a republican.
Lets try to keep this away from the actions of groups.

We're talking about national elections. I think discussing group action when the focus is clearly on party politics is totally valid. It would be silly to pretend that group affiliation plays no role.


lorenlord wrote:

The Independant party did that? Hm.

You're obviously drinking the Liberal kool-aid, great for you.

For those watching at home, when someone insists they're politically independent and yet manages to squeeze a right-wing epithet into every one of their posts, they're either fooling themselves or trying to fool you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Well, it's certainly better than "I voted for Bush II and have been overcompensating for it ever since by telling everybody that doesn't agree with me that they don't understand how the political process works!"
Shall we trot out your political decisions at age 19 as an example of why you overcompensate, Anklebiter? Or have you always been the firebrand that you are?

I joined the International Socialist Organization when I was 15 or 16.

But I'm not the one in this thread calling people ignorant or cynical or whatever it is that you Dem shills call people who disagree with your hope and change bullshiznit.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Scott the perception is not entirely unwarranted. Obama was a great candidate, but he was certainly far less willing or able to play the game compared to say, a Bill Clinton.

Let's not pretend that the political climate Obama faces is the same sort that Clinton faces. Hell, Clinton's even outright said as much.

He's the President, not a miracle worker. His powers are constrained by the rest of the federal government, and Republicans have many, many tools at their disposal to curtail that power further. Where previously they would have employed those tools judiciously, they have spent the past six years using everything they can possibly muster to ensure that he accomplishes nothing meaningful, because their goal isn't to govern effectively - it's to annihilate a sitting President's legacy before it's written.

Quote:
For all intents and purposes, the Obama Presidency ended last night. The only real question is how long the Affordable Healthcare Act will survive it.
I don't see any credible threat to the ACA on the horizon. Do you?

Yes... if the Republicans get that majority in the Senate and House to block an Obama veto, than AFCA is dead. The Democrats did not just loose Congress they took a major wallop in Governor races as well. Also keep in mind that there are some make or break Supreme Court cases coming up regarding the subsidy issue on which a lot of the Healthcare success rides on.

Tuesday's election was an unqualified disaster for Democrats, aside from Cory Booker, whose election was a slam dunk, hardly any Democrats survived that night.

One has to ask, that after all of the obvious Republican obsructionism we've seen for the last six years, the American public still turned this viciously on the Democratic party, what will we see next year?

Right now the people to watch are Chris Christie who organized a lo of the successful gubernatorial races, and Scott Walker who obviously has his eye on being Obama's successor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
lorenlord wrote:

The Independant party did that? Hm.

You're obviously drinking the Liberal kool-aid, great for you.

For those watching at home, when someone insists they're politically independent and yet manages to squeeze a right-wing epithet into every one of their posts, they're either fooling themselves or trying to fool you.

Independent and ideologically on either side are not mutually exclusive. I am on the border between libertarian and conservative, but I have never joined a political party, and likely never will, thus an independent.

Will I vote for someone on the left side of the ideological spectrum? Unlikely, due to ideological differences, but that does not mean I join the party of that candidate's opposition.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Vive le Galt!

edit: I just realized I should totally copy that cowardly lion costume for Halloween next year.


LazarX wrote:
Yes... if the Republicans get that majority in the Senate and House to block an Obama veto, than AFCA is dead.

First, vetos aren't blocked; they're overridden. By supermajorities. In both houses.

Republicans don't have that, in either house. They would have to poach fully a quarter of all Democratic senators to make that happen in the Senate alone, which is another way of saying that it's functionally impossible.

Now, you could be arguing that their victories put them closer to a supermajority in both houses, but that argument doesn't hold up on more than a superficial level - it's like trying to argue that turning the heat up on an oven whose dial only goes to 550 degrees makes it more likely to reach 670. There were no game-changing demographic shifts in long-held strongholds. What we saw in this election was simply the typical sway of voter attitude over the course of a Presidency. The Republican Party remains just as mathematically incapable of reaching a supermajority in both houses today as they were a year ago.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Well, it's certainly better than "I voted for Bush II and have been overcompensating for it ever since by telling everybody that doesn't agree with me that they don't understand how the political process works!"
Shall we trot out your political decisions at age 19 as an example of why you overcompensate, Anklebiter? Or have you always been the firebrand that you are?

I joined the International Socialist Organization when I was 15 or 16.

Then credit to you for sticking to your guns. Meanwhile, the rest of us are allowed to change our views as we're exposed to more of the world.


Scott Betts wrote:


Quote:
For all intents and purposes, the Obama Presidency ended last night. The only real question is how long the Affordable Healthcare Act will survive it.
I don't see any credible threat to the ACA on the horizon. Do you?

It's a long shot and the political consequences would be unpredictable, but as I said above, they could simply not fund it. Leave the law in place, but not provide money for subsidies and the like.


JurgenV wrote:
Never said all are bad, just said they are the group most likely to hate on the military

And you've given no evidence other than personal anecdote to support that in the face of both evidence and personal anecdotes rebutting it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Well, it's certainly better than "I voted for Bush II and have been overcompensating for it ever since by telling everybody that doesn't agree with me that they don't understand how the political process works!"
Shall we trot out your political decisions at age 19 as an example of why you overcompensate, Anklebiter? Or have you always been the firebrand that you are?

I joined the International Socialist Organization when I was 15 or 16.

Then credit to you for sticking to your guns. Meanwhile, the rest of us are allowed to change our views as we're exposed to more of the world.

If by changing your views you mean becoming even more rabidly Democrat, I can see your point. As much as you so clearly hate it, some people are actually happy that the government is bound up in gridlock. That's the way it's supposed to work. And the poor put upon President just can't get anything meaningful done because of all those nasty people who just won't roll over and agree. Why, it's like people have differing views on how the country should run.

The Exchange

Apparently poor turnout of young voters is to blame.


Scott Betts wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Well, it's certainly better than "I voted for Bush II and have been overcompensating for it ever since by telling everybody that doesn't agree with me that they don't understand how the political process works!"
Shall we trot out your political decisions at age 19 as an example of why you overcompensate, Anklebiter? Or have you always been the firebrand that you are?

I joined the International Socialist Organization when I was 15 or 16.

Then credit to you for sticking to your guns. Meanwhile, the rest of us are allowed to change our views as we're exposed to more of the world.

I don't really care about your consistency or lack thereof. I do care about you being an insufferable, hectoring* asshat towards Citizen Home.

---
*Got to use it correctly this time!


Irontruth wrote:

Vive le Galt!

edit: I just realized I should totally copy that cowardly lion costume for Halloween next year.

My favorite part in the whole video is the shot where the Lion is looking at the camera and swinging his tail.


thejeff wrote:
JurgenV wrote:
Never said all are bad, just said they are the group most likely to hate on the military

And you've given no evidence other than personal anecdote to support that in the face of both evidence and personal anecdotes rebutting it.

There is no evidence to give, i have met no small number of anti war liberals that hate the military and several of my iraq veteran friends complained about that set giving them grief. It is personal experience that is all.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

do you guys even have jobs? or are endless debates on politics and policy your jobs?

i truly want to know, every time theres a thread where people are calmly having a light conversation, all of a sudden you guys jump on and within a few hours its pages and pages of back and forth and hyperbole!

i would appreciate it if the following Paizo People go a month without so much as interjecting a single political point into any conversation on these boards, i will send them Cookies of their choice (i'm a 3rd generation baker, so yeah pretty f$##ing good!)
anyway the people: TheJeff, Simon Legrande, Yellowing, BignorseWolf, Scott betts, Lazarx, Comrade ankle biter (and the rest of his communist aliases).

listen you guys are great, but its been years and you're all going around the same circle and its really annoying to have these same conversations pop up over and over and over and over again! as my son likes to tell me "you people need a time out!"

flag it if you want:)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Well, it's certainly better than "I voted for Bush II and have been overcompensating for it ever since by telling everybody that doesn't agree with me that they don't understand how the political process works!"
Shall we trot out your political decisions at age 19 as an example of why you overcompensate, Anklebiter? Or have you always been the firebrand that you are?

I joined the International Socialist Organization when I was 15 or 16.

Then credit to you for sticking to your guns. Meanwhile, the rest of us are allowed to change our views as we're exposed to more of the world.
If by changing your views you mean becoming even more rabidly Democrat, I can see your point. As much as you so clearly hate it, some people are actually happy that the government is bound up in gridlock. That's the way it's supposed to work. And the poor put upon President just can't get anything meaningful done because of all those nasty people who just won't roll over and agree. Why, it's like people have differing views on how the country should run.

But you are just not an enlightened liberal. they know better than you, cannot wait to tell you so and will enforce that on you for your own good given the chance.

Liberty's Edge

captain yesterday wrote:

do you guys even have jobs? or are endless debates on politics and policy your jobs?

i truly want to know, every time theres a thread where people are calmly having a light conversation, all of a sudden you guys jump on and within a few hours its pages and pages of back and forth and hyperbole!

i would appreciate it if the following Paizo People go a month without so much as interjecting a single political point into any conversation on these boards, i will send them Cookies of their choice (i'm a 3rd generation baker, so yeah pretty f$$%ing good!)
anyway the people: TheJeff, Simon Legrande, Yellowing, BignorseWolf, Scott betts, Lazarx, Comrade ankle biter (and the rest of his communist aliases).

listen you guys are great, but its been years and you're all going around the same circle and its really annoying to have these same conversations pop up over and over and over and over again! as my son likes to tell me "you people need a time out!"

flag it if you want:)

Did someone hold a gun to your head and force you to read the thread?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:

do you guys even have jobs? or are endless debates on politics and policy your jobs?

i truly want to know, every time theres a thread where people are calmly having a light conversation, all of a sudden you guys jump on and within a few hours its pages and pages of back and forth and hyperbole!

i would appreciate it if the following Paizo People go a month without so much as interjecting a single political point into any conversation on these boards, i will send them Cookies of their choice (i'm a 3rd generation baker, so yeah pretty f&&@ing good!)
anyway the people: TheJeff, Simon Legrande, Yellowing, BignorseWolf, Scott betts, Lazarx, Comrade ankle biter (and the rest of his communist aliases).

listen you guys are great, but its been years and you're all going around the same circle and its really annoying to have these same conversations pop up over and over and over and over again! as my son likes to tell me "you people need a time out!"

flag it if you want:)

I am one of the "underemployed," i.e., I work part-time.

A couple of years back I tried to go a week without politrolling, but I think I only lasted two or three days before I broke down.

You should've seen what this place was like before Paizo introduced the "hide thread" feature.

Also, I never flag. It reminds me of snitching.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Wrangling a quarter of the Dems to back a repeal of Obamacare may not be as difficult as one would think, after Tuesday's results.
It would depend on whether they care more about staying in office than following their platforms.
Depending, of course, how they view the reason for Tuesday's results.


I could see a repeal, filing the serial numbers off, then a reintroduction with concessions made for friends, so that they could say it was their idea all along.


Freehold DM wrote:
I could see a repeal, filing the serial numbers off, then a reintroduction with concessions made for friends, so that they could say it was their idea all along.

Never get through the Republican party. They really want no part of it.

You might get a package of "tort reform" and "Sell across state lines", which really means "Don't let states regulate insurance within their borders".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
White Knight Doodlebug wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Well, it's certainly better than "I voted for Bush II and have been overcompensating for it ever since by telling everybody that doesn't agree with me that they don't understand how the political process works!"
Shall we trot out your political decisions at age 19 as an example of why you overcompensate, Anklebiter? Or have you always been the firebrand that you are?

I joined the International Socialist Organization when I was 15 or 16.

Then credit to you for sticking to your guns. Meanwhile, the rest of us are allowed to change our views as we're exposed to more of the world.

I don't really care about your consistency or lack thereof. I do care about you being an insufferable, hectoring* asshat towards Citizen Home.

---
*Got to use it correctly this time!

While I appreciate your noble attempts to defend me, Scott's post didn't bother me much at all. My impression was that he was of the mistaken opinion that I am a fallen Democrat.

I find the Democrat's party platform *almost* as execrable as the Republican's, so I'm definitely a staunch independent.

To show you just how insane I am, I'd love to put the Greens in power for 4-8 years to undo all the damage done by deregulation and the multiple Supreme Court decisions making corporations more and more like, "Citizens with no legal responsibilities", and then we'd need 4-8 years of Libertarians to undo all the damage done by the Green party.

My statement about voting for Obama was more because in 30 years of voting I got to say, "I have never voted for a major party candidate, except to vote against men named Bush."
The only times I *ever* voted Democrat were when I truly feared the Republican candidates.

So the fact that I voted *for* Obama was a significant event in my life. The fact that he was elected in November of 2008 and the Affordable Care Act passed the House in December of 2009 indicates to me that yes, he was unwilling to fight hard enough or wait long enough to get something decent passed.

I am a firm believer in an FDR-style presidency: Name and shame.

"This is what I am trying to accomplish. This is why I believe it would be good for the country. These are the people blocking me. The midterm elections are coming. If you honestly want to see a decent health care act passed, you are going to have to vote in that election."

The president has a bully pulpit. He should use it. The Affordable Care Act could have been the cornerstone of his presidency. Instead of spending his political capital generating discontent among the populace about obstructionist Republicans (and don't get me wrong - I 100% agree with Scott that I haven't seen such an obstructionist congress in my lifetime, and I think you have to go back to the mid-1800's to find a historical record of one), he tried to compromise.

So I think his fault is that he didn't understand just how hostile of an environment he was stepping into, and he took the (in my mind) unfortunate tack of, "OK, what CAN we pass?"

It came across as desperate, half-baked, weak, and has been the major weapon in the Republican's arsenal ever since.

Not a good move, in my opinion.

EDIT: For the record, I'd consider myself Libertarian, except:
- Libertarianism expects an "omniscient consumer" who punishes companies that abuse their employees. Never seen it. So I'm a firm believer in government regulation of industry. I actually LIKE OSHA. Go figure.
- While I despise the government giving any tradeable good to anyone (cash, food stamps, etc.), I believe part of having a First World government is to avoid having a diseased, starving, homeless populace. So I'm perfectly willing to see a portion of my income go to provide food and housing to the homeless (but not cash or food stamps), and to provide medical care to those who need it. This is anathema to most Libertarians, so I'm definitely not one.

So yeah, I'm lost at sea among political parties that don't represent me. Ah, well...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

[Sheathes sword]

I have a different take on Obamacare, and, yes, it involves Senator Baucus's chief health policy counsel going on to a lucrative job at Johnson and Johnson, but Captain Yesterday is correct. We've been going over this shiznit for years.

I think I'm gonna go get high and watch Captain Blood.


i dont see a full repeal but i do see some major changes (removing the medical device tax) etc.

I dont see any changes to immigration. I think the threats of i have a pen/phone are over. I think the threats werent real to begin with though as he could have done this before

Demococrats are going to have to make major changes to party. Debby Wasserman Schultz is gone/fired by early next year. Message is going to jobs jobs jobs. Harry Reid is truly going to regret the nuclear option. Going to be really interesting to watch Elizabeth Warren and how senate democrats react to her

Repulicans now have to work on a PR campaign to win over more independents and moderate democrats. Having more governors on board will help along with more women republican senators/governors

Gone is the talk of the Redskins logo change and other issues that have no bearing on the day to day lives of regular americans. Gone is the talk that the republican brand is finished and wont win another major election. Gone is the talk that radical republican like Scott Walker can win and stay in power. Gone is once blue it never changes to purple or red (massachusetts, Illinois). Gone for now is is the smugness/overconfidence of Biden/Reid/Pelosi etc.


ShadowcatX wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

do you guys even have jobs? or are endless debates on politics and policy your jobs?

i truly want to know, every time theres a thread where people are calmly having a light conversation, all of a sudden you guys jump on and within a few hours its pages and pages of back and forth and hyperbole!

i would appreciate it if the following Paizo People go a month without so much as interjecting a single political point into any conversation on these boards, i will send them Cookies of their choice (i'm a 3rd generation baker, so yeah pretty f$$%ing good!)
anyway the people: TheJeff, Simon Legrande, Yellowing, BignorseWolf, Scott betts, Lazarx, Comrade ankle biter (and the rest of his communist aliases).

listen you guys are great, but its been years and you're all going around the same circle and its really annoying to have these same conversations pop up over and over and over and over again! as my son likes to tell me "you people need a time out!"

flag it if you want:)

Did someone hold a gun to your head and force you to read the thread?

Ah, the Internet equivalent of "you can't tell me what to do!" Much easier to tell them to not read the thread than try to ramp back the hyperbole and general grar. It's like we're playing out how the Congress and Senate operate here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:


Ah, the Internet equivalent of "you can't tell me what to do!" Much easier to tell them to not read the thread than try to ramp back the hyperbole and general grar. It's like we're playing out how the Congress and Senate operate here.

People on the Left being complained about: "This is what I believe. These are the list of reasons why i believe it"

People on the right they're arguing with: Koo-laid drinking liberal unamerican nutjobs! Teleprompter!

Hipster Nihlists: Well they're both fighting so they must both have equally valid points and are equally responsible.

Hmmmm.. there may be some truth to your observation. This is how congress and society work. Or rather, don't work.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The top two are reversible, like a good coat.
Except it's usually "Bitter clingers that believe in a sky fairy LOLOLOL" instead of the kool-aid comment.


Kryzbyn wrote:

The top two are reversible, like a good coat.

Except it's usually "Bitter clingers that believe in a sky fairy LOLOLOL" instead of the kool-aid comment.

Except that is where a lot of the policy on the right comes from.(abortion, prayer in schools, faith based initiatives, as well as wrapping every republican policy from apple pie to the second ammendment as a god given right)

If you deny that premise which is the only reason for the conclussion it logically follows that you don't reach that conclusion. Ideally it would be done with more respect and sophistication than what you're outlining but it at least makes sense.


KahnyaGnorc wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
lorenlord wrote:

The Independant party did that? Hm.

You're obviously drinking the Liberal kool-aid, great for you.

For those watching at home, when someone insists they're politically independent and yet manages to squeeze a right-wing epithet into every one of their posts, they're either fooling themselves or trying to fool you.

Independent and ideologically on either side are not mutually exclusive. I am on the border between libertarian and conservative, but I have never joined a political party, and likely never will, thus an independent.

Will I vote for someone on the left side of the ideological spectrum? Unlikely, due to ideological differences, but that does not mean I join the party of that candidate's opposition.

Agreed, Kahnya.


KahnyaGnorc wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
lorenlord wrote:

The Independant party did that? Hm.

You're obviously drinking the Liberal kool-aid, great for you.

For those watching at home, when someone insists they're politically independent and yet manages to squeeze a right-wing epithet into every one of their posts, they're either fooling themselves or trying to fool you.

Independent and ideologically on either side are not mutually exclusive. I am on the border between libertarian and conservative, but I have never joined a political party, and likely never will, thus an independent.

Will I vote for someone on the left side of the ideological spectrum? Unlikely, due to ideological differences, but that does not mean I join the party of that candidate's opposition.

It's true in the most literal sense. You're officially an independent if you're not registered as a member of a political party. In that sense of course, Greens and Libertarians aren't independent.

In practice, if you reliably vote for one party, you're not really independent.


Thejeff wrote:
In practice, if you reliably vote for one party, you're not really independent.

Eyup. I'm registered independent but I'm functionally a democrat. I'm a lukewarm democrat but staunchly anti republican and I'm a utilitarian: i believe in putting what little power my vote has where it will do the most good, and thats not with a third party in my experience.

New York has an interesting thing where the same candidate can be in multiple parties, so i can say vote for the not republican who has a chance of winning and help the working families party stay on the ballot at the same time.

There are also run away races. Cuomo was winning by 800 points so I went with the third party Sapient party which is all about voter reform.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Thejeff wrote:
In practice, if you reliably vote for one party, you're not really independent.

Eyup. I'm registered independent but I'm functionally a democrat. I'm a lukewarm democrat but staunchly anti republican and I'm a utilitarian: i believe in putting what little power my vote has where it will do the most good, and thats not with a third party in my experience.

New York has an interesting thing where the same candidate can be in multiple parties, so i can say vote for the not republican who has a chance of winning and help the working families party stay on the ballot at the same time.

There are also run away races. Cuomo was winning by 800 points so I went with the third party Sapient party which is all about voter reform.

CT has Working Families to, but I'm not happy with them for letting Cuomo play them while sabotaging Democrats in the NY Senate.


Hipster nihilists? I wanna meet one of those guys.

And I'm totally with the Wolf on Republicans being religious fanatic zealots who want a theocracy and Democrats being the measured voice of logic and reason. Totally.


Simon Legrande wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Well, it's certainly better than "I voted for Bush II and have been overcompensating for it ever since by telling everybody that doesn't agree with me that they don't understand how the political process works!"
Shall we trot out your political decisions at age 19 as an example of why you overcompensate, Anklebiter? Or have you always been the firebrand that you are?

I joined the International Socialist Organization when I was 15 or 16.

Then credit to you for sticking to your guns. Meanwhile, the rest of us are allowed to change our views as we're exposed to more of the world.
If by changing your views you mean becoming even more rabidly Democrat, I can see your point. As much as you so clearly hate it, some people are actually happy that the government is bound up in gridlock. That's the way it's supposed to work. And the poor put upon President just can't get anything meaningful done because of all those nasty people who just won't roll over and agree. Why, it's like people have differing views on how the country should run.

Simon, don't forget, you can't say anything opposite to the POTUS's agenda, or you're racist, from what i've seen/heard on CNN, MSNBC, and other media outlets. And nothing opposit Hillary's agenda either, or you're sexist.

I remember hearing Obama say that he wasn't on the ballot, but his policies definitely are(as his constituates were running from him like rats off of a sinking ship). Well with the Dems taking that bad of a beating, what should that tell a rational person about how America feels about his policies?


Simon Legrande wrote:
If by changing your views you mean becoming even more rabidly Democrat,

Are you just talking for the sake of talking, here? You clearly don't know the context behind what Anklebiter was talking about (he's referencing my mentioning in a thread many months - or longer - ago that I began my adult life as a registered Republican before switching parties). So, no, I didn't become "more rabidly Democrat", I switched parties.

Quote:
I can see your point. As much as you so clearly hate it, some people are actually happy that the government is bound up in gridlock. That's the way it's supposed to work.

Ah, yes! That's why the founding fathers established a system of governance! So that nothing would get done!

You titan of intellect, you.

Quote:
And the poor put upon President just can't get anything meaningful done because of all those nasty people who just won't roll over and agree. Why, it's like people have differing views on how the country should run.

What you miss, here, is that democracy runs on compromise. See, normal people, when given the choice between a) having to deal with a less-than-ideal solution, and b) doing nothing about a problem the country faces, would choose to solve the problem even if it's not their preferred way of going about it. Not so for Republicans. Their policy is overt obstructionism. That's not governance. That's an extended temper tantrum.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would think it tells rational people "Oh look, the same sort of thing that happens in midterms, especially when whichever party has been in the White House for 6 years."

It made for an interesting election night, but will it matter in a week? 2? A year?


captain yesterday wrote:

do you guys even have jobs? or are endless debates on politics and policy your jobs?

i truly want to know, every time theres a thread where people are calmly having a light conversation, all of a sudden you guys jump on and within a few hours its pages and pages of back and forth and hyperbole!

i would appreciate it if the following Paizo People go a month without so much as interjecting a single political point into any conversation on these boards, i will send them Cookies of their choice (i'm a 3rd generation baker, so yeah pretty f%&@ing good!)
anyway the people: TheJeff, Simon Legrande, Yellowing, BignorseWolf, Scott betts, Lazarx, Comrade ankle biter (and the rest of his communist aliases).

listen you guys are great, but its been years and you're all going around the same circle and its really annoying to have these same conversations pop up over and over and over and over again! as my son likes to tell me "you people need a time out!"

It must be such a burden to you to have to skip past political threads on an internet discussion forum!


lorenlord wrote:
Simon, don't forget, you can't say anything opposite to the POTUS's agenda, or you're racist, from what i've seen/heard on CNN, MSNBC, and other media outlets. And nothing opposit Hillary's agenda either, or you're sexist.

Yes, this is absolutely a supportable claim and not at all a transparent, pitiful tactic to dismiss criticism - if you can paint everyone who ignores your points as ignoring you for racism rather than for the lack of merit in your arguments, you no longer have to defend those arguments at all!

Quote:
I remember hearing Obama say that he wasn't on the ballot, but his policies definitely are(as his constituates were running from him like rats off of a sinking ship). Well with the Dems taking that bad of a beating, what should that tell a rational person about how America feels about his policies?

That this is a mid-term election for a lame-duck Presidency, which nearly always result in significant losses for the President's party. This isn't anything unique to Obama's Presidency, as much as you might want to paint it that way.

Liberty's Edge

knightnday wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

do you guys even have jobs? or are endless debates on politics and policy your jobs?

i truly want to know, every time theres a thread where people are calmly having a light conversation, all of a sudden you guys jump on and within a few hours its pages and pages of back and forth and hyperbole!

i would appreciate it if the following Paizo People go a month without so much as interjecting a single political point into any conversation on these boards, i will send them Cookies of their choice (i'm a 3rd generation baker, so yeah pretty f$$%ing good!)
anyway the people: TheJeff, Simon Legrande, Yellowing, BignorseWolf, Scott betts, Lazarx, Comrade ankle biter (and the rest of his communist aliases).

listen you guys are great, but its been years and you're all going around the same circle and its really annoying to have these same conversations pop up over and over and over and over again! as my son likes to tell me "you people need a time out!"

flag it if you want:)

Did someone hold a gun to your head and force you to read the thread?
Ah, the Internet equivalent of "you can't tell me what to do!" Much easier to tell them to not read the thread than try to ramp back the hyperbole and general grar. It's like we're playing out how the Congress and Senate operate here.

So the post telling people not to post in these threads is acceptable but my post telling said person to simply not read the thread if he doesn't like these kinds of threads is unacceptable? That makes sense. . .


knightnday wrote:

I would think it tells rational people "Oh look, the same sort of thing that happens in midterms, especially when whichever party has been in the White House for 6 years."

It made for an interesting election night, but will it matter in a week? 2? A year?

Really? So that's what immediately pops into every American's head? "No biggie, happens all the time?" Doubtful.

And since i don't have a crystal ball, I don't know what will happen in the next week/ year/ decade/ millenium. If I did, I'd have won the lottery a long time ago.

What I do know is that alot of people in general were invigorated after this election, feeling like the country is turning the corner for the better. Just like 2008's "hope and change" agenda. Check the polls: see what Americans thought about if they were better off now than 6 yrs ago, their thoughts on the gov't in general, the scandals, etc. Oh, but those are Bush and the Republican's fault, I forgot anything that happens bad, it's their fault. But hey, Obama killed Bin Laden, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
If by changing your views you mean becoming even more rabidly Democrat,

Are you just talking for the sake of talking, here? You clearly don't know the context behind what Anklebiter was talking about (he's referencing my mentioning in a thread many months - or longer - ago that I began my adult life as a registered Republican before switching parties). So, no, I didn't become "more rabidly Democrat", I switched parties.

Quote:
I can see your point. As much as you so clearly hate it, some people are actually happy that the government is bound up in gridlock. That's the way it's supposed to work.

Ah, yes! That's why the founding fathers established a system of governance! So that nothing would get done!

You titan of intellect, you.

Quote:
And the poor put upon President just can't get anything meaningful done because of all those nasty people who just won't roll over and agree. Why, it's like people have differing views on how the country should run.
What you miss, here, is that democracy runs on compromise. See, normal people, when given the choice between a) having to deal with a less-than-ideal solution, and b) doing nothing about a problem the country faces, would choose to solve the problem even if it's not their preferred way of going about it. Not so for Republicans. Their policy is overt obstructionism. That's not governance. That's an extended temper tantrum.

I could have sworn you mentioned that you knew exactly how government works.

You've heard the phrase "checks and balances" haven't you? You honestly believe that the US government was designed to put one person in charge then bulldoze their agenda through? Talk about a titan of intellect.

I'm not missing anything, the way a democracy works is that the majority gets their way. There is no compromise needed there. More people want A, you get A. The US was designed to be a republic, not a democracy. The founders were against the mob rules democracy. Thankfully either party in our current system is able to put up roadblocks. Or is obstruction only bad when Republicans do it?


ShadowcatX wrote:
knightnday wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

do you guys even have jobs? or are endless debates on politics and policy your jobs?

i truly want to know, every time theres a thread where people are calmly having a light conversation, all of a sudden you guys jump on and within a few hours its pages and pages of back and forth and hyperbole!

i would appreciate it if the following Paizo People go a month without so much as interjecting a single political point into any conversation on these boards, i will send them Cookies of their choice (i'm a 3rd generation baker, so yeah pretty f$$%ing good!)
anyway the people: TheJeff, Simon Legrande, Yellowing, BignorseWolf, Scott betts, Lazarx, Comrade ankle biter (and the rest of his communist aliases).

listen you guys are great, but its been years and you're all going around the same circle and its really annoying to have these same conversations pop up over and over and over and over again! as my son likes to tell me "you people need a time out!"

flag it if you want:)

Did someone hold a gun to your head and force you to read the thread?
Ah, the Internet equivalent of "you can't tell me what to do!" Much easier to tell them to not read the thread than try to ramp back the hyperbole and general grar. It's like we're playing out how the Congress and Senate operate here.
So the post telling people not to post in these threads is acceptable but my post telling said person to simply not read the thread if he doesn't like these kinds of threads is unacceptable? That makes sense. . .

Go back and read it again. I believe I said that it was easier to tell them not to read any of the posts than to calm down and try not to repeat yourself, try not to get into meaningless slap fights with each other, and so on.


thejeff wrote:

CT has Working Families to, but I'm not happy with them for letting Cuomo play them while sabotaging Democrats in the NY Senate.

hmmm? Hows that work?

1 to 50 of 252 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / I'm Going to go Vote Today All Messageboards