Aretas's page

Organized Play Member. 695 posts. 1 review. 2 lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.

2 people marked this as a favorite.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We use only the Core and the APG. My gaming group is trying to avoid the bloat of 3.5.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samnell wrote:

Joint statement from LGBT organizations on FRC shooting.

Also Greta Christina, Jen McCreight, Ed Brayton and that's where I stopped looking because I was getting sick of typing the link code.

So, you know, what they said.

Yeah I see what they said. Unfortunately many in the OTD see people who support traditional marriage as hateful.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Our Game table

1 person marked this as a favorite.


I agree with the article that gang bangers should be treated like terrorists. Living in Chicago I'm on the periphery of the violence but not out of the line of fire.
This conversation got derailed from another thread and hope to get some good back and forth dialogue.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The real story is the race baiting bigots of La Raza (The Race) But you will not read about that here.

What is fascist about banning classes that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, encourage resentment toward a race or a class of people, are designed solely for students of a certain ethnicity and advocate for ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of students as individuals?

Would "March of the titans" be acceptable reading material for a majority white school?

(No it would not, you see my point)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:

To be more accurate, public perception about the economy is getting worse. Or at least amongst those individuals buying guns.

Splitting hairs perhaps, but I think a useful distinction for the discussion.

I don't think the economy IS going to get better, or more stable, until we transition to an economy based on sustainable energy and agriculture. This will either happen by choice and gradually, or by necessity after "the crash". I'd prefer the former.

I believe the economy will get better if government big brother gets out of the way.

Sustainable energy is wonderful. As long as we get there by choice, through the free market NOT by government ramming it down our throats.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
Celestial Healer wrote:

Correlation =/= Causation

Seriously? It's just a coincidence that the people who spend massively more money on advertising (hint: that's the "getting your message out" you talk about in your post) win? Get your head out of the sand.

I guarantee you don't detest Walker as much as I do, you don't live here. You don't have to live with this crap. Guarantee within 3 months we'll be a right to work state. Right to Work Wisconsin was making robocalls for Walker, and when the question about right to work was put to him in the debates he ducked, dodged, dove and dodged the question, refusing the answer. Because of the legislation passed, two of my friends are out of a job (teachers) and a third will likely have his pay cut by about 20%. I could go on.

The amount of political ad time that the Walker campaign was able to leverage was staggering. I have still only ever seen a Barrett commercial on Hulu, and only Walker ads on broadcast television. Even on the LIBERAL TALK RADIO station in Madison, 100% of the ad time was bought by the Walker campaign.

8 to 1. 31 million to 4 million.

I'm sorry, but saying that the amount of money spent on a campaign has no effect on the outcome is pure ignorance.

I would like to see how much was spent compared to the Dems during the gubernatorial race.

I'm happy with the outcome in WI!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
The Church, at least the Catholic one, is not anti-gay, does not have anti-gay policies, nor advocates gay hate or bashing; much on the contrary, it advocates love and understanding, but at the same time asks homosexuals to remain chaste and restrain from having homosexual intercourse.

Saying that homosexual sex is a sin, and asking people in a loving relationship to refrain from expressing that love simply because you do not approve IS ANTI-GAY. It is unequivocally anti-gay. The fact that you fail to grasp this notion shows how far down the rabbit hole you are on this issue. To deny it is akin to saying (as someone has on these very boards) "I'm not racist I'm just for the races remaining separate" (paraphrasing).

Look, replace homosexual sex with interracial sex.

The church isn't anti-interracial relationships, it just asks that those who are attracted to members of other races remain chaste and refrain from pursuing those desires, since doing so is a sin in the eyes of god.

There are enormous differences between men and women, but there are no differences between people of different races. Men and women are inherently different, but blacks and whites (and yellows and browns) are inherently the same. Therefore, any imposed separation by race can never be moral or even rational; on the other hand, separation by sex can be both morally desirable and rational. Separate bathrooms for men and women is moral and rational; separate bathrooms for blacks and whites is not.

The second reason the parallel between opposing same-sex marriage and opposing interracial marriage is invalid is that opposition to marriage between races is a moral aberration while opposition to marrying a person of the same sex is the moral norm. In other words, none of the moral bases of American society, whether religious or secular, opposed interracial marriage -- not Judaism, not Christianity, not Judeo-Christian values, not deism, not humanism, not the Enlightenment. Yes, there were religious and secular individuals who opposed interracial marriage, but by opposing interracial marriage, they were advocating something against all Judeo-Christian and secular norms, all of which saw nothing wrong in members of different races intermarrying (members of different religions was a different matter).
On the other hand, no religious or secular moral system ever advocated same-sex marriage. Whereas advocating interracial marriage was advocating something approved of by every religious and secular moral tradition of America and the West, advocating same-sex marriage does the very opposite -- it advocates something that defies every religious and secular moral tradition. Those who advocate redefining marriage are saying that every religious and secular tradition is immoral. They have no problem doing this because they believe they are wiser and finer people than all the greatest Jewish, Christian and humanist thinkers who ever lived.

But as objectionable as hubris is, false comparisons are worse. And there is no comparison between different races and the different genders. There are no inherent racial differences; there are significant differences between the sexes. To the extent that racial groups are different, they are only because their cultures differ. But a black man's nature is not different from that of a white man, an Asian man, an Hispanic man.

The same is not true of sex differences. Males and females are inherently different from one another. We now know that even their brains differ. And those differences are significant. Thus, to oppose interracial marriage is indeed to engage in bigotry, but to oppose same-sex marriage is not. It simply shares the wisdom of every moral system that preceded us -- society is predicated on men and women bonding with one another in a unique way called "marriage."

Comparing the prohibition of same-sex marriage to prohibiting interracial marriage is ultimately a way of declaring the moral superiority of proponents of same-sex marriage to proponents of keeping marriage defined as man-woman. And it is a way of avoiding hard issues such as whether we really want all children to grow up thinking it doesn't matter if they marry a boy or a girl and whether we really want to abolish forever the ideal of husband-wife based family.

Those who wish to redefine marriage for the first time in Jewish, Christian or secular humanist history may offer any honest arguments they wish. Comparing the prohibition of same-sex marriage to prohibiting interracial marriage is not one of them.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Sasha Grey.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Taylor Rain.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Aretas wrote:
Thats the problem, you don't care about realistic. After all its the tax dollars of the American citizen, the productive Americans, hard working business owners who are fattening the pockets of the entitlement masses and the bureacrats.

And if I were not one of those productive Americans, that would be one thing.

I'm with Kauffman on your religious dictatorship scare tactic. I'm also with Kauffman shoulder to shoulder on your "get out of the way" comment. I think you should know that I checked behind the DM's screen and you rolled a 1 on that intimidation check.

That wasn't intimidation. That was a suggestion, or fair warning, depending on what you want to do about it.

Anti gay marriage does not mean anti gay.
Yes it does. By the way, the courts agree. If you are against gay marriage, you're a bigot. We know this. You know this. Everyone knows this. And, for whatever reason, you're still trying to deny it.

Stop your hate speech! Your wrong, wrong, wrong about what you just said. Maybe there are some, SOME people who hate homosexuals, so what?

You have been brainwashed pal. Everywhere I turn the vermin in the media are brain washing people into believing that conservatives and/or republicans are bigots!
Enough of this garbage from you, stay on topic and keep your demagoguery to yourself.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Man In Black wrote:
Aretas wrote:
Yes, for no reason aside from personal. I see this thread no different than the one speaking about gay marriage. Is it 1984 yet?

Being that "Barack Hussein Obama" guy tends to indicate you're not interested in informed discussion.

But let's look at your math, hmmm?

Over 1 million more Unemployed Americans.

Than when? This is contextless. If you mean since he was inaugurated, sure. Unemployment peaked about nine months after his inauguration, at 10%, and has been down ever since.

Unemployement rate close to 9%.

8.1% isn't "close to 9%".

Gas prices up over 80%.

This is largely due to a massive spike downwards in gas prices in 2009. (Can't imagine why.) 2011 average gas prices were about 8.3% higher than 2008's gas prices, when inflation is taken into account.

Federal debt up 43%.

Yeah, about that.

I'm not really interested in doing your research for you for the rest, since you can't be bothered to cite sources, but I did want to pick on the last one.

Real gross domestic product, increased at an annual rate of 2.2 percent in the first quarter of 2012 down from 3% last quarter.

Wait, you're comparing quarter-to-quarter numbers, now? I thought you were comparing now to when Obama was inaugurated. The GDP was shrinking when Obama took office (down -6.7% in his first quarter as president, down -8.9% the quarter before). It's been turned around to positive since the end of 2009, and has stayed positive since.

Aretas, this disingenuous abuse of numbers isn't doing much for your case. I'm not much fond of Obama at this point, but I'm even less fond of grandstanding and lying with statistics.

@ White Knife put your Pom Poms down, mmmmk.

Citing Jackie Calmes? She's riding down that downward spiral with Obama. How about some unbiased sources.

Would you like another serving of QE2? I'm sure you would.

Even if it were a legit number, the 8.1% unemployment rate, released by the Labor Department, would be simply terrible and unacceptable. It would still extend the longest streak of 8% plus unemployment since the Great Depression. The U.S. economy hasn’t been below 8% unemployment since Obama took office in January 2009. And back in May 2007, unemployment was just 4.4%.

But, unfortunately, the true measure of U.S. unemployment is much, much worse. If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office 65.7% then vs. 63.9% today the U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.8%.

Then there’s the broader, U-6 measure of unemployment which includes the discouraged plus part-timers who wish they had full time work. That unemployment rate, perhaps the truest measure of the labor market’s health, is still a sky-high 14.9%.

Recall that back in 2009, White House economists Jared Bernstein and Christina Romer used their old-fashioned Keynesian model to predict how the $800 billion stimulus would affect employment. According to their model—as displayed in the above chart, updated—unemployment should be around 6% today.

I'm going to go outside now and have me some fun....I'm going to have me some fun.....going to have me some fun.....going to have me some fun.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pendothrax wrote:
sorry to threadjack a little but this whole thread reinforces why i have just banned paladins from my campaign.

Paladins are not the problem. DM's and Players interpretations of the "Code" are.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't worry everyone, this issue will go away very soon. Obama told me a secret, he said.....

"This is my last election, and after my election I have more flexibility"

I told him I will transmit this to my people in Chicago.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was thinking about buying this game b/c it IS turn based and 3.5/D&D. It would be great if someone came out with a bunch of Baldurs Gate, Temple of Elemetal Evil style RPG's. You could import your PC to other games, like modules from D&D or Dungeon magazine style adventures. Man I would be a subscriber of that! BUT IT MUST BE TURN BASED!!

2 people marked this as a favorite.

There should be a thread thats titles:
"My Paladin Hate masks my real world personal hang ups"

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its all fun and dandy to have Gay/Les/Trans/Bi....did I get everyone? Sorry if I missed a group or two ;)
Don't you think it will distract from gaming? I mean we all know what gamers do and say when the Barmaid comes to the table at the local tavern. A couple seconds of sexual remarks is the norm I guess but any more than that the game gets hijacked by PC's who want to go around and have sex, relationships with x,y,z NPC's! I've seen it recently and my is it sad and frustrating for the other Players at the table.
Now imagine party members getting it on and roleplaying those encounters. What a drag (no pun) on the campaign.

At a recent Chicagoland D&D meet up a couple Gay guys played and kept doing all the above, in their case the male bouncer at the tavern and making advances to the male PC's of the group. At first it was amusing b/c we are roleplaying and having fun with it. After a while it just got weird and we had a hard time (no pun) getting on track to run the game. Thankfully the "gamer" got a hold of them and we actually rolled some d20's and saved the day.

The other time a straight guy playing did the same thing to a female NPC in the game. This one was so over the top we now call it "I'm a Badass Barbarian" incident. I'd be happy to tell you all the story if your intersted.
In summary, I stay away from the personal stuff in regards to sexual orientation of the NPC's & Players.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Journalist and writer. Not one of the greatest of our time. Just one man's opinion.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds to me that something else is going on here beneath the surface. Maybe the DM was proving a point with you. Maybe you were trying to prove a point to him.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

They should all go and OCCUPY WASHINGTON! They are all misdirecting their anger. Wall street didn't saddle us with close to a Trillion dollars with the stimulus. Its not Wall street that wants to borrow another 500 billion for Stimulus redux (jobs bill) Washington pushed Fanny and Freddy to give loans to unqualified home buyers b/c everyone had a right to own a home even if they could not afford it. Wall street isn't the reason why unemployement is close to 10%.
On and on and on and on.