Frogboy's page

Dictum? ... nearly killed 'em.

Libertarians are dumb because they think removing government won't lead to centralized monopolistic corporate entities that look out only for the interest of the company while functionally acting just as disruptively to the magically "Free" market as any government force, despite all evidence of history showing this is exactly what occurs. Left unchecked, power consolodates and seeks to remain in power by crushing competition. Government is the arbitor and equalizer that prevents the consolidation of the free market, not the other way around.

This is [mostly] false. I hear it a lot from progressives but it's essentially a myth. The best way to prevent monopolies is to limit the government to avoid crony capitalism. The only kind of monopoly that can exist in a free market is an efficiency monopoly. This is when a company produces a product or service that is so superior (and continues to remain so) that no one else feels that they can compete in the same market. This isn't a bad thing.

A coercive monopoly is what we normally think of when we use the term monopoly. These can only exist [for long] when they use government to crush competition by creating rules and regulations that prevent competition and often extract subsidies or special tax breaks that other businesses don't receive. A free market provides an even playing field, maximum economic freedom, creates lots of competition and brings down the prices. Coercive monopolies can not exist in this environment. If free markets would benefit large, mega-corporations then why don't large, mega-corporations support free markets?

A little over 4 years ago, on September 15th 2008 Lehman Brothers declared bankrupcy. The entire financial system was in collaspe because deregulating the free market had failed. Don't give me the "Fanny" or "Freddie" crap, it was people investing in instruments they didn't understand and passing off risk on each other as they consolidated power. It was lack of oversight by an impartial outside resource.

It was a failure of governance.

Uhg! Another progressive fallacy. Austrian economists are totally in favor of free markets and deregulation yet were also the ones who were warning everyone that a housing bubble was forming and would wreak havoc on the economy. How do you explain this paradox?

Four years later, 3 and a half after Obama took office, if you don't think we are better off than when we weren't sure if the entire financial system would collapse you are full of crap.

I am actually about the same. I was the only person in my company besides my boss who hasn't lost his job since the financial meltdown. I was one of the lucky ones. This doesn't mean that the White House's policies have been very stellar since the crash or have been good for the economy. We continue to slowly claw and drag our way out of this recession while, if handled properly, would likely be be a fading memory. And now their great idea to rescue the economy is to create another housing bubble.

Romney is offering the same philosophy that caused that collapse. That caused the explosion of Debt under Reagan that lead to the SNL crisis and the Recession of 1991 that got Clinton Elected despite Bush Sr winning a war in Iraq.

This philosophy is dumb.

This is likely true. Even though Republicans champion free markets and small government, it's nothing but rhetoric for all but the truly conservative.

Obama has not gone back on most of his campaign promises. Politifact tracks the status of the President's campaign promises versus policy enacted to fulfill them. Fully 59% of Obama's promises have been kept or are rated as being in the works. Another 15% were compromised on in order to bring them about. 9% were stalled. Only 17% of Obama's campaign promises are rated as 'Promise Broken'.

Please stop spreading quasi-fashionable mis-truths.

He has gone back on virtually all of the ones that I care about and may vote for him had he kept. The promises that he has kept are either minor or just plain bad policies that will likely fail to make any kind of meaningful impact.

My vote for Obama isn't going to be based on a personal adoration for the man. I've had and will no doubt continue to have problems with it.

But despite any equivocations or nigglings you want to bring up, from a pure pragmatic viewpoint. I have to ask myself this question.

I am currently in a gay marriage that I did not intend but is fully legal right now. Of these two men, one has more backing from groups who want to reduce that marriage to a sub-legal status, and the other is villified by the same people.

I can add 2+2 and come up with the answer of which of them is the smarter choice to vote for. What they've done in the past, including Romney's onetime support and Obama's onetime silence is irrelevant. The platforms that they are running... [/QUOTE

I understand your position and desire for Obama over Romney. I too would desire a government that no longer discriminates against gays and lesbians as this would bring us closer to the equality that I seek.

Unfortunately, the whole "any male we happen to kill in the the Middle East that is old enough to hold a gun is a terrorist" policy weighs on my conscious even more. Also, not only is Gary Johnson for gay marriage (and even said this in the Republican primaries) supporting him and convincing others to support him will likely help Obama get reelected more than it'll help Romney. But the win for us libertarians will hopefully be the public awareness that hopefully ensues about the candidate that they never even heard of that still somehow grabbed 5%-10% of the popular vote.

The point isn't that the deck is stacked in the major parties' favor, and thus your vote won't matter. It's that you effectively are stripping a vote from one of the two candidates that stands a chance of being elected, making the actual outcome of the election worse for yourself than if you had just voted for a major party in the first place.

I have never in my life supported a Democrat or Republican for president of the United States. So how could my vote possibly strip away a vote for one of them? And which one entitled to my vote?

That's not the entire point of voting. The entire point of voting is to exercise the political muscle allotted you by the U.S. and state constitutions in order to produce the most desirable outcome possible. You absolutely should be using game theory when casting your vote, because this is a democracy and a democracy is not about you trying to get exactly what you want; it's about compromise with everyone else. If you try to get exactly what you want, but go about it blindly, you will end up worse off than if you had compromised.

What happens when neither option would produce a more desirable outcome? All of the things that I care about are opposed by both major parties.

I know Orthos here is probably beyond help at this point, since he won't be reading anything else, but for anyone else under the mistaken impression that both parties are the same, please please please take a look at this side-by-side comparison of the two party platforms, in their own words. It makes it very clear that there are major differences between the two parties in terms of proposed action and political philosophy.

I still don't see much of a difference there. And anyone who pays attention knows that 90% of that is nothing but political rhetoric.

Quote:

Every person who voted in the 2000 and 2004 elections are collectively responsible for the country electing George W. Bush.

Well, no, not every person. The ones who voted for Gore (or Kerry) aren't.

You really believe that Gore wouldn't have gone to war after 9/11? Clinton had already been bombing Iraq and Afghanistan for years and they are just going to back out after the WTCs fell? Maybe we should have just listened to Ron Paul.

This whole libertarian thing, we tried that for the first 10,000 years of human existence. It sucked. A lot.

Now we have the Internet and vaccines. It's better. Look it up.

Wow. I've heard people go back to early America to try to disprove libertarian ideology. This is the first time that I've seen someone go all the way back to the Stone Age. Please tell me more about how progressivism is working out for us when it comes to teaching personal responsibility to the populous.

Gun control has everything to do with Aurora.

You're right. Excessive gun control stripped away the right of all of those victims to defend themselves.

You guys can argue all day long about how that may not have changed the outcome but you don't know that. It just as easily could have ended with few or no innocent lives taken. Gun laws don't stop criminals from committing crimes (by definition).

I'm thinking lvl 11 Paladin, lv 6 Bard, lv 8 monk

S-20
D-12
C-22
I-16
W-20
Ch-25

HP 300

thoughts?

I'm thinking level 2 Witch with the Fortune and Charm Hexes. ;)

I don't know about that. I think being a "real*" christian would help, not not nearly as much as being a real conservative. Honestly, his plea to doing something differently than obama is "Its ok if the state government makes you do this , but i would never do it at the federal level" is pathetic. Government is government.

To be fair, only a tiny handful of these politicians are real Christians. Christ was a pacifist who said things like "love thy enemy" and "turn the other cheek". He would not have condoned the current actions of our leaders. We've pretty much become the modern-day version of Ancient Rome. Kind of ironic, I suppose.

The thing is that the libertarian utopia with no government at all hands ALL power over to corporations who are not beholden to the people, even in name. What we see time and time again is that deregulation doesn't lead to more competition and exploration of better ideas, it leads (as it has these last 30 years) to consolidation of money power in the hands of an elite few who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

There are so many things wrong with first paragraph that I don't even know where to begin. Libertarians are not anarchists. They don't believe in "no government" nor do they want "absolutely no regulation" on business. What they do want is the bare minimum necessary of both of these things. Right now, big business is less regulated in many ways because they actually are the ones putting our leaders in place for us. You really believe that America elected George W Bush twice because he was best person to lead our country? Big oil elected both of the Bushes.

Anti-competitive behavior stifles competition and that's what our government currently endorses. Electric cars were actually more popular at the turn of the century yet we still use the same combustion engines we have for the last century with little innovation elsewhere. If someone were to invent a car that runs on water, do you honestly believe that it would ever see the light of day? Marijuana would make a much better medicine than much of the synthetic chemicals we use today but the Alcohol, Tobacco and Pharmaceutical industries have been squashing that for decades. What we have now is exactly the consolidation of money and power that you are saying will happen if we elected a Libertarian government.

The United States of America didn't become a world superpower with the ideals we hold today. We were a libertarian nation for much of our glory years and almost all of our great innovations came from that era. Would you have liked it if electricity was stamped out because it would have hurt the candle industry or if automobiles never were because horse-breeders and carriage makers would lose business and eventually be phased out? Allowing fair and equal competition doesn't stifle innovation. It's exactly the opposite. We should be much further ahead than what we are today and our government is highly responsible for that.

Voting for the off party is like a mexican stand off between members of the far left and the far right. If the constitutionals/greens don't go along with the republicans/democrats NONE of their candidates get into office and then they're stuck with the worse of two evils.

You aren't including the Libertarians. They fill in a nice middle ground that would allow Congress to reach the two-thirds vote (given an even mix). You are also ignoring the fact that our government doesn't consider the people's interests at all. Third party office holders aren't going to be out for themselves. They would actually be trying to do a good job. The Democrats and Republicans feel entitled to our votes. They fully expect it. Even if they just started losing ground to the third parties, it'd probably rattle them enough where we'd see significant improvement from them. Right now, they do nothing but venomously oppose anything the other side does even if it's something that they'd normally agree on. Opposing something just because it'd make the other side look good isn't working for us.

If you steer away from what you don't want you're getting closer to what you do want.

Not when you're driving in the wrong direction.

I don't understand how what wiener did can be considered more obscene than voting against the 9 11 responders bill, or of not covering cancer from that incident.

The article that I linked to was about him spending $130,000 in campaign money AFTER he resigned. The other article was about Jack Ambroff, a lobbyist who just served a few years in jail for corrupting Washington politicians. He claims it's really easy to do and it's still going on.

1) People have short memories, the long game doesn't work in politics.

That's why it's up to us to convince people that voting corrupt politicians into office is not the best strategy for America. It's actually not as hard a sell as you think especially to the nearly 50% of the population that doesn't vote because they've already given up hope.

2) You have to keep lettting the other side into government to make it happen

There is little difference between the two so I highly doubt that it'll make a difference either way. Had Gore won the 2000 election, 911 would have still happened; we still would have declared war on terrorism; and we'd still be broke from it. Nobody (well, maybe Ron Paul) stopped for a second to consider that this was exactly what the terrorists were counting on us to do. They attacked our economy with more than just planes. If taking lives was their top priority, they would have waited another hour when 10x as many people would have arrived for work at the Twin Towers.

Also, Obama, with an almost filibuster Democratic Senate, didn't even attempt to repeal the Patriot Act or do much of anything else worth while in his first two years. Why do you think that only one side would lose ground and the other would gain even more power anyway?

3) While the other side is in office unopposed they can gerrymander the election districts so that you'll never win an election before we hit mars.

They've both colluded together and done that already. They can't take our right to vote away, though (yes, I realize that we don't actually have defined right to vote in America). This is one of the best arguments to use to convince someone to go third party. Who wants to vote for a cheater? This fact alone is enough for me not to vote for them.

Ross Perot worked because he was privately funded. Without oodles of money the third parties are doomed. Also, once the third parties become worth buying, whats to keep corporations from buying them as well like they did with the tea party?

Green - Doesn't accept corporate donations. Hard to corrupt that.

Libertarians - Limited government means limited power. The cost outweighs the gain.

Constitution - These people actually believe in the righteous morality that the Republicans just fake to get the Christian vote. They'd be held way more accountable if they strayed.

Frogboy, I remember our discussion from an earlier thread, and this speaks directly to my point, then. Basically, in order to get elected, you have to have a position that appeals to the median voter--i.e., the mainstream. The Reform Party came the closest to all third parties to doing just this. They never had a shot at taking the Presidency, but they did manage to place members into lower elected positions, including the governorship of Minnesota. I won't speak about how good a governor Jesse Ventura was, but he was an actual third party candidate, and he did actually win. It was the implosion that did the Reform party in.

You only need the mainstream statewide for Congress, Senate or Governor and only countywide for most everything else. Different states have different ideals. The president is actually the last one we really need to worry about. I agree with you on this and fully encourage a bottom up strategy (actually, it's an even strategy but the bottom is where we'd see the earliest results). I plan to and encourage everyone to cross third party lines in any election where your preferred choice is not represented. If my only choice is Democrat, Republican or Constitution at a lower level, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to vote Constitution even though it's my least preferred.

Furthermore, I honestly believe that civic involvement is absolutely vital to long-term success of any party, or even any personal position. I have personally worked to help with the election of independent individuals in the town I live in, and they have been elected. Both the Green and Libertarian parties have successfully gotten candidates elected to offices at the local and state level, and these successes have helped the parties to continue to exist as going concerns. In short, to get your views out there where they can be acted upon, act and change what you are large enough to effect.

You actually did convince me to start taking a serious look at this. If I can get some free time when my wife isn't in school, I plan on attending the local trustee meetings to get an idea of what those are all about and if there is anything I can do for my community (and after looking at their pathetic excuse for a website, I have a feeling there is). Thank you for the advice. I did take it to heart.

I'd rather do a small amount of good with a small amount of fuss than absolutely no good with a large amount of fuss.

Take a look at history. The most radical, left wing pro minority candidate 100 years ago would be too far right to run on the rightest wing of the party today.

I think the solution is to vote in so many democrats that the democratic middle becomes the green platform, and the greens can move on to getting whales non human citizenship rights. (hey, they're more of a person than corporations)

I don't believe that voting in a monopoly is the answer and would only make things way worse. There's a difference between the Democrats and the Greens. The Democrats, the ones that have made it into higher office at least, are a bunch of power-hungry millionaires who pretend to be for the people. The Greens are normal people who actually are for the people.

You are doing absolutely no good voting for Democrats. They're a bunch of fakers. People like you are the problem. I'm not saying this to be mean or insulting, I'm saying it because it's true.

Instead of just throwing up our hands and acting like there isn't anything we can do about it, why don't we start doing something about it? If enough people are willing to stand up and criticize both the Democratic and Republican elite, and endorse people who would lead for the benefit of the citizens who elected them, America would be much better off. We might not win right away but we've got to start somewhere.

Frogboy wrote:

I will not like it nor serve it and believe that anyone who votes for the lesser of two evils is as ignorant as the casual racist of 50-100 years ago. You just follow the herd like a good little sheep even though you know it's wrong.

You realize that it's the Democrats and Republicans that tell you that you have to vote for them? You serve your masters well.

This looks suspiciously like "you are not a libertarian, therefore you are wrong."

Nope, I support the Greens just as much as the Libertarians. I respect the Constitution party on their moral ground (something the two major parties completely lack) but couldn't personally vote for them based on their tenets. I do believe that they would hold true to their beliefs in office and would never criticize anyone for voting for them.

I'm not saying that my beliefs are right therefor yours are wrong. I'm saying that the Democrats and Republicans are selfish, greedy, arrogant, power-hungry, elitist [insert expletive here]. Why would you vote for that when you could vote for someone who actually wants to make America a better place for everyone (not just themselves)? The Democrats and Republicans are the 1%. They sold us up the river along time ago and the crap that's going on now is the result of decades of greed and corruption. The Green party accepts absolutely no corporate donations. The Libertarians and Constitutions favor scaling back the authoritarian government much much more and giving the power back to the people.

It's downright shameful that we are sitting in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and our president is likely going to spend a billion dollars to buy your vote ... and you're going to give it to him (or to the other guy that ends up spending a half a billion). What the eff is the matter with everyone today?

I understand that you probably think I'm a lunatic or something but I assure you that I'm terribly normal person. A hundred years ago, people that wouldn't have been racist were because it was the social norm and was kind of expected of them. You were viewed less favorably (to say the least) if you didn't partake in the unsavory practice of demeaning someone else's race. Many people didn't like this but did it anyway because they were pressured into it. I see the same thing happening with our political system today as I'm constantly pressured into voting for the lesser of two evils. I just can't do it. Sooner or later, hopefully, this will be the norm as well.

Agreeing on the problem is one thing, and not that difficult, as this thread shows. Agreeing on the solution is VERY difficult, intelligence notwithstanding.

I'm cool with the libertarian platform all the way through its social values. Where it loses me is the entire breadth of its economic stance. The platform is completely invested in the myth of the free, unregulated market. To paraphrase FDR, the free market is a poker game--sooner or later someone has all the chips. Sooner or later, people won't stand for it. The market MUST be regulated, and that regulation can best be done by the government. To be blunt, if the government doesn't do it, then armed revolutionaries inevitably will. Regulation is therefore nothing less than casualty prevention.

Deregulation is at least one of the major causes of today's...

You don't understand the Libertarian platform or more likely, you've been mislead or misinformed by you know who. Libertarians will regulate people and business but will do as little of it as they feel is necessary. You won't see one super conglomerate taking over all business in entire country (and polluting without care) just like you won't have to worry about your angry neighbor taking a dump on your porch every day. They're not anarchists. They basically just want to get the government out of the business of regulating morality which is costing this country trillions of dollars every year. These are the principles that our country was founded on and would still be on if we hadn't let our government get so corrupt.

Frogboy wrote:

Caineach wrote:

Survey results for OWS. It has some interesting demographic results from a 300 person study.

73% Dislike Obama's policies
42% said they would vote democrat in a national election ...

So 42% of the people protesting against the 1% are going to vote the 1% back into office (even though they don't like his policies)?

* head explodes *

Kang and Kodos in Treehouse of Horror VII.

This would be funny if it weren't so close to the truth.

Its the matter of voting for the lesser of two evils. Not liking our two party system and not acknowledging its existence aren't the same thing. Your choices are Obama, one of the republicans, or Obamaclone Romney.

I will not like it nor serve it and believe that anyone who votes for the lesser of two evils is as ignorant as the casual racist of 50-100 years ago. You just follow the herd like a good little sheep even though you know it's wrong.

You realize that it's the Democrats and Republicans that tell you that you have to vote for them? You serve your masters well.

Somewhere between "Free markets deserve to be free of oversight!" rhetoric and the "Goverment should own everythign and divy it all up!" rhetoric, is a good solution waiting to be found. So far, neither the tea PArty nor the OWS people have found it, or even come close.

Yeah, there's an answer all right. People aren't intelligent enough to see it obviously.

.

Let's all keep electing the 1%, though. I'm sure things will getting better any day now.

Survey results for OWS. It has some interesting demographic results from a 300 person study.

73% Dislike Obama's policies
42% said they would vote democrat in a national election ...

So 42% of the people protesting against the 1% are going to vote the 1% back into office (even though they don't like his policies)?

* head explodes *

I need to know something here so would you be so kind as to answer a couple of questions for me? If you live in the US and are old enough to vote, do you typically vote for:

A) Democrats and/or Republicans
B) Not Democrats or Republicans

If the answer is A, answer the following.

C) My ideals match the political party that I vote for better than any others (counting less popular third parties).

D) I split my votes between Republican and Democrats pretty evenly.

E) I pretty much vote for the lesser of two evils. [whichever side that may be for you]

F) I would support a third party but then I'd just be throwing my vote away.

And finally ...

G) I believe our elected officials are doing a great job or at least the best that we can hope anyone to do.

H) I wonder if they actually do anything in Washington?

This is a serious question. I'm not just trying to start a political flame war. Please keep it civil.

Doubt it'd be a problem to make a feat (hopefully not feet) out of it. I also like the idea of using INT for finesse weapon damage.

Would a Paladin smite evil babies?

No, a baby should be pretty easy to one-shot even without a smite. Waste of resources.

I don't know if they were wow moments. I've asked questions in order to find out, but I've not heard the answers which indicate that they were. They seem to be moments where the bard was merely effective.

Wow moments usually happen when a character does something that isn't in their natural realm of expertise or far surpasses it. No one remembers when the Barbarian rages and kills a Giant, when the Wizard fireballs the orc encampment or when the Bard scares away all of the monsters with a fear spell. That's what these characters are supposed to do and they do it often.

Wow moments come when your 3rd level swashbuckler kills the flying 6th level wizard by tying a rope around the warforged, throwing a grappling hook, hooking the wizard's ankle and having the warforged jump into the raging river (and then having the wizard fail 3 concentration checks to dimention door out of there).

A Wow moment is when your Assassin successfully death attacks a 20th level NPC that he had no business messing with.

A Wow moment is when someone moronically doesn't take 10 on an easy jump over a 150ft deep spiked pit and rolls really bad and ends up dead.

Or when a PC rolls 4 natural 20's in a row and two confirms to critical death two powerful monsters in one round.

You can't really plan these. They just kind of happen. That's why we still talk about them.

Give me an S! S! Give me an M! M! Okay, it's time to kill this thread.

Constipated

Love: It's based on d20 rules
Hate: It's based on d20 rules

Okay...WHO let Frogboy out of his cage?

Must ... resist ... urge to sing Who Let the Frogs Out.

Arg! Thanks, now it's stuck in my head. ;)

If they now believe me, they are no longer lying and thus no Bluff check is made. If the Captain knows that the queen does not have a brother, than the bluff will not convince him otherwise(and the guard wouldn't be that likely to force the issue with the captain) without proof or something else to go on. Even then I would say he would investigate the matter.

If the captain knows that [for a fact] that the queen doesn't have a half brother then he gets a +100 on his sense motive skill check modifier. I'll fill out the other values for you. These are off the top of my head.

Positive it's a lie +100 or auto succeed
Almost positive +30
Pretty sure +20
Skeptical or dire consequences +10
Not sure or bad consequences +5
Uneasy +2
No consequences +0
Benefits you or you want to believe it -5

DC 20 spot check will see the presence of an invisible being within 10 feet if they've moved that round. That's when big beasties go for the grapple. No guessing where that Ninja is if you can grab a hold of them. A lot of monsters have Improved Grab which means that you can full out attack and get the free grapple attempt if you land one.

Most of the time, the PCs are being met by an opposing force. Yes, they do wander into random dungeons and face forces that aren't aware of their presence but a lot of times, this isn't the case. Any BBEG worth his salt will learn as much as they can about the forces of good that are hunting them down and will prepare accordingly. Wizards have see invisibility. Druids have high spot checks and faerie fire. Clerics have Invisibility purge etc, etc.

Yes, invisibility is a powerful ability but chances are, all of the PCs have powerful abilities. It's not like it's a total cheese power. Invisibility and Ninjas go together like peanut butter and jelly. Just need to take steps to throw equalizers in there when it counts.

Neutral Paladin -> Fighter ... maybe Ranger

It's not like any of his abilities would work. Smite Thing I Don't Like, Friendly Handshake and Aura of Nothing just don't seem to have that same zing!

Now just imagine a cleric with a 5000 gp diamond about to cast the spell, and the market price drops sharply. >:)

lol

"Hmmm...he's usually walking by now". *poke* *poke*

Nobody pays attention to that kind of stuff. 1000gp and a raise dead and you're back in the action. :)

The more I think aout it, the more I'm wondering if cleric is the way to go with this guy. Since undead are no longer immune to sneak attack damage, I'm thinking rogue might be a better way to go flavorwise. Besides, our group already has a cleric and I do't want to step on toes.

I get the idea that you are looking more at a true hunter type of character as opposed to an undead destroyer. If you wanted the undead destroyer though...

I would avoid adding cleric to it. Positive energy channelign is VERY weak against undead in core. Example at 12th level you do a 6d6 burst (average 21) that they can save against to make the average 10.

Another Example (15 point buy)...

187 'um Killa
Human Cleric 12 (of Serenrae)
Str: 08
Dex: 12
Con: 12
Int: 08
Wis: 18 * Start 14 + Headband of MP (WIS +4)
Cha: 25 * Start 16 + Racial Bonus + Level Boosts + Headband of MP (CHA +4)

Attack: Worthless
AC: 28 (+3 Fullplate [+12], +3 Heavy Steel Shield [+5], Dex [+1])
AC: 32 with Shield of Faith (12 minutes)
FOR: 13
REF: 08
WIL: 15

Spells: Used on self and allies mostly (weak DCs)
Traits: Sacred Conduit? (channel DC +1)
Feats: Selective Channeling, Improved Channel, Alignment Channel (Evil), Extra Channel, Armor Proficiency (Heavy), Craft Wondrous Item, Plus one more (see below)

Items of Note:
[Mask, Bracelet or Amulet] of Positive Energy Channeling (8,250gp to make because of uncustomary body slot)
Headband of Mental Prowess [WIS, CHA] +4 (20,000gp to make)
Cloak of Resistance +3 (4,500gp to make)

Channel: 12 times/day
Against Undead: 8d6+12 (Sun Domain), Average 40hp
Healing or against Evil Outsiders: 8d6, Average 28
DC: Will 26 (10 + 7 CHA + 6 Level + 2 Improved Channel + 1 Trait)

If the DM allows you to take Ability Focus (Channel) which is within the rules AFAIK, you could boost the DC up to 28. Not many will save either.

Remember that this is the 15 point buy version which I assume is the low end of the scale. His AC might be a little high. Not sure if you'd have the money for all of that gear but making the essentials yourself might save you enough gold to accomplish that and possibly more.

So, you are up in fray buffing, healing and protecting your allies and when Undead or Evil Outsiders show up, you're a killing machine (and kind of a sitting duck for AoE). This could easily be tweeked, though. Breast plate (save a feat) and a Belt of Dex +4 (8,000gp) would get you close to the same AC and with a better Reflex save. Might be tough finding all of the time necessary to craft all this stuff. If you roll stats, you can probably do with the much cheaper Headband of CHA and get there.

Still, a channeler can be quite effective. I know. I'm playing one. He's negative energy which is useful on more enemies but this build is even way more powerful against undead with the Sun domain than I am against the living. Widdling your enemies down while the heavy hitters pick them off is quite effective, though.

Exactly; and they DID get something pretty big, anyway. Since turn undead has been replaced with channel energy, they can now use that power to heal, and actually cast some spells without worrying about needing them desperately for spontaneously-cast healing. That's a fairly significant boost in power and flexibility for a class that was already arguably the most powerful, or one of the most powerful, in the game.

Clerics are fine. They don't need a "capstone," IMO.

Pathfinder fixed what was broken about Clerics in 3.5. They could double as melee tanks and be almost as good as the melee classes. Now it costs extra feats and there's no way to get that full attack bonus. The cleric is no longer terribly effective in melee. You can fill in in a pinch but you'll never be great at it.

So you are left with your spells which are probably the weakest set of spells this side of the bard. Unless they've added more spells above 6th level, which I doubt, the Clerics spells turn really bad at level 7 and 8. They only get a couple of good spells until the level 9 ones which aren't even all that.

I'm not sure why everyone thinks Clerics are so powerful.