The "keep your political crap outta my game forum" thread


Off-Topic Discussions

351 to 400 of 697 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Wow, Brent. I deleted my post because I decided to drop it, but you got it before it was gone.

Silver Crusade

Kruelaid wrote:
Wow, Brent. I deleted my post because I decided to drop it, but you got it before it was gone.

Put it back... Makes me look like I am talking to "Harvey".


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Timespike wrote:

It's my experience that many don't care. I'm all for compassion, by the way, it's just that governments are inherently dispassionate. If you want REAL compassion out of an organization, it needs almost by definition to be a private not-for-profit. If I were a disaster victim, I'd much rather see Salvation army or Red Cross trucks & personnel than FEMA ones, for instance. It's also a very bad idea to put a government agency between you and anything you'll ever need quickly. Like medical care.

Well, what do you expect when you put a political party that happens to hold the belief that, by and large, the government is incompetent in charge? You get self-fulfilling prophecy.

Partisan barbs aside, one of FEMA and the federal government's great advantages is the power to marshal tremendous amounts of resources - particularly money, something the Salvation Army and the Red Cross cannot do in anywhere near the magnitude. The flooding this June has strapped the Red Cross here in WI.

Liberty's Edge

brent norton wrote:
Kruelaid wrote:
Timespike wrote:
It's also a very bad idea to put a government agency between you and anything you'll ever need quickly. Like medical care.
True. On the other hand, if medical decisions are made based SOLELY on finance then a lot of people are f@%#ed. Like my grandfather. They made a lot of money putting him on expensive drugs, as much as they could, really, and it killed him. Or my brother, who was turned away from a hospital because he didn't have a plan...back when he was in college.

I have no problems with laws governing what's right and proper, ethically speaking, for the medical community. What I have a problem with is the government deciding something isn't perfect, so we'll nationalize it. What I'd really like to see is a much smaller government that vigorously enforces a small number of extremely necessary laws, rather than a humongous government that writes bazillions of laws and then enforces them only spottily. The number of things that are against the law should be MUCH smaller than it currently is, but I also feel the penalties for the few things that would be left (murder, rape, theft, hard drugs*, etc.) should be terrifyingly dire. I have no problem with the idea of hanging murderers and rapists, for instance.

*such as, but not limited to: Heroin, Cocaine, PCP, LSD, and Meth. I've never used pot, and I don't like having it around, but it's likely no worse having it society than alcohol or tobacco. I'd prefer that it were illegal, but if I'm going to be consistent, it just doesn't make sense.

Liberty's Edge

Bill Dunn wrote:
Timespike wrote:

It's my experience that many don't care. I'm all for compassion, by the way, it's just that governments are inherently dispassionate. If you want REAL compassion out of an organization, it needs almost by definition to be a private not-for-profit. If I were a disaster victim, I'd much rather see Salvation army or Red Cross trucks & personnel than FEMA ones, for instance. It's also a very bad idea to put a government agency between you and anything you'll ever need quickly. Like medical care.

Well, what do you expect when you put a political party that happens to hold the belief that, by and large, the government is incompetent in charge? You get self-fulfilling prophecy.

Partisan barbs aside, one of FEMA and the federal government's great advantages is the power to marshal tremendous amounts of resources - particularly money, something the Salvation Army and the Red Cross cannot do in anywhere near the magnitude. The flooding this June has strapped the Red Cross here in WI.

They do have their advantages, I suppose, but I'm still going for the salvation army truck if I'm ever in that situation. And that's less a partisan barb than a purely ideological one. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that I'd rather see a much smaller, flat, income tax and mandated charitable giving on top of it. (Say 15% and 5%, respectively; and allow that 5% to go to any legitimate charity). That way, everybody's contributing (just like paying taxes) but the resources are going to places that are much more efficient.

It will never happen. I'm aware.

Silver Crusade

Timespike wrote:
"Bill Dunnstrapped the Red Cross here in WI. [/QUOTE wrote:

They do have their advantages, I suppose, but I'm still going for the salvation army truck if I'm ever in that situation. And that's less a partisan barb than a purely ideological one. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that I'd rather see a much smaller, flat, income tax and mandated charitable giving on top of it. (Say 15% and 5%, respectively; and allow that 5% to go to any legitimate charity). That way, everybody's contributing (just like paying taxes) but the resources are going to places that are much more efficient.

It will never happen. I'm aware.

I would actaully vote for that.

The Exchange

grrtigger wrote:
Tensor wrote:

How do you know if you are a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent?

Is there a test?

You could try the Political Compass test. There's even an FAQ.

Economic Left/Right: -4.12

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.46

Awesome! Almost Lefter and more liberal than The G Man.

Liberty's Edge

Egads. I knew gamers were a liberal lot, but come on now, there aren't ANY more traditional conservatives taking that test?

Liberty's Edge

Kruelaid wrote:
Wow, Brent. I deleted my post because I decided to drop it, but you got it before it was gone.

Why? I'll happily talk politics HERE, I just don't want to do it in game threads.

The Exchange

Timespike wrote:
Egads. I knew gamers were a liberal lot, but come on now, there aren't ANY more traditional conservatives taking that test?

The problem was there were quite a few questions that had a third option I would have prefered (neither of these points of view).

Realy lets talk conservative Commonwealth: I support the two laws of the Commonwealth that have gone unenforced for fifty years (even the US Constitution has this - thought they water it down in the articles).

Sedition is any Act of Government, Law, Constitution, Sovereign causing Governemnt, Law, Constitution, Sovereign to be held in hatred and contempt (thus requiring the regular consent of every citizen to legitimize Acts of Government, Law, Constitution, and Sovereign).

Treason is any Act assaulting the obligations of the State to its citizens (thus any criminal act undermining the right of the individual to an equal share of the benifits and obligations of citizenship).

That is how you protect human rights and execute anyone who questions human rights in the slightest.

Scarab Sages

Timespike wrote:
Egads. I knew gamers were a liberal lot, but come on now, there aren't ANY more traditional conservatives taking that test?

Why? I know where I stand.

Scarab Sages

Kruelaid wrote:


It's supposed to read: "Aberzombie should not be allowed to reproduce."

You know, my wife just might agree with you.


Well, here's my results

Economic L/R 1.75
L/A 1.74

Sounds about right for me.


Timespike wrote:
Egads. I knew gamers were a liberal lot, but come on now, there aren't ANY more traditional conservatives taking that test?

Dude, I think there ARE traditional conservatives, it's just that the corporate bent of the quiz is making them look like liberals.

Dark Archive

Economic Left/Right: 5.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

Sounds about right. I'm probably a litter lower on the social score, but not by much.

I can see loaded question bit, but I think the test would better if it made it clear on whether or not its talking about what you want from government, and adding a neutral button.


Aggggh! I went out to the store to get some milk, and while I was gone, Aberzombie had privatized my cats! Now they have corporate logos all over them, and will only eat kibble endorsed by their respective sponsors as the official nom noms of the Trey family cats.

I was hoping that my appeal for a level playing field on which my kitties could compete with some of the pussycats overseas whose unfair cuteness production conditions give them an unfair advantage, but my pleas for government assistance got nowhere.

I tell you, these undead free market evangelists are running amuck! Well, I have to go now. Dolly and Goblin have a teleconference set up with their subcontractor in the Czech Republic, and some contest winners are on their way in with a photo op with Pumpkin.

Dark Archive

Timespike wrote:
Egads. I knew gamers were a liberal lot, but come on now, there aren't ANY more traditional conservatives taking that test?

The current batch of people who call themselves 'conservatives,' who are in bed with the people who consider our favorite pastime 'that devil-worship game,' have done a great job of turning gamers against them. As long as they take their money from the religious leaders who say that America deserved 9/11 and that God invented IEDs to punish us and that Katrina was sent to stop a gay pride parade in New Orleans, they'll continue to alienate people who have souls. When the candidate for President *actively seeks out endorsements from these people,* in the hopes of getting their votes and money, it doesn't reflect well upon their movement, or their morals, or their right to call themselves human beings.

If *real* conservatives (yanno, the ones who believe that government should stay the heck out of our private lives, bedrooms, bank accounts, phone lines, emails, etc.) ever come back into power, I'll welcome them back and ask where the hell they were when their movement got hijacked by the current batch, who've expanded the size, power and price-tag of the federal government more than any so-called 'big government' administration ever dreamed of doing.


Set wrote:
If *real* conservatives (yanno, the ones who believe that government should stay the heck out of our private lives, bedrooms, bank accounts, phone lines, emails, etc.) ever come back into power, I'll welcome them back

Wow, and I thought I was the only one who had noticed that. I was starting to feel like I was hallucinating that. Thanks for saying it, Set. Kudos!


Trey wrote:

Aggggh! I went out to the store to get some milk, and while I was gone, Aberzombie had privatized my cats! Now they have corporate logos all over them, and will only eat kibble endorsed by their respective sponsors as the official nom noms of the Trey family cats.

I was hoping that my appeal for a level playing field on which my kitties could compete with some of the pussycats overseas whose unfair cuteness production conditions give them an unfair advantage, but my pleas for government assistance got nowhere.

I tell you, these undead free market evangelists are running amuck! Well, I have to go now. Dolly and Goblin have a teleconference set up with their subcontractor in the Czech Republic, and some contest winners are on their way in with a photo op with Pumpkin.

Dear Sir,

As legal counsel for Mr. Zombie, it is my duty to inform you that my client had nothing to do with any activities perpetrated by your cats. My client has a distinct aversion to any feline of the household persuasion, and does not associate with them, nor conduct any business with them.

I suggest you seek elsewhere for the source of your pet's strange behavior, and refrain from any further disparaging statements about my client. I would not like to take legal action against you, but I will if it means protecting my client's good name.

Sincerely,

Sir Spitsalot, Paladin-at-Law

Liberty's Edge

Kruelaid wrote:
Mothman wrote:
Kruelaid wrote:
Lead us to heaven oh master Mothman!
I don't know ... I think my heaven would feature more hotties in barely there bikinis than Ghandis, Mandelas, or the Dalais would be likely to have...
I guess we need a z-axis, too.

Morality, along with dimension, is overrated.

Liberty's Edge

Timespike wrote:
Garydee wrote:
Trey wrote:
Garydee wrote:


Lol! Well, it kinda depends on how far science advances by the time I'm old. I might die at 80 or if they figure a way to stall the aging process I might live twice that.
The only problem is, it would apply across the board. I can't bear the thought of 120 more years of seeing Brad and Angelina stories at the supermarket checkout.
That's true. The problem with a long lifespan would be marriage. Could you imagine being married to same the person for centuries?
If that was the right person, I would have difficulty imagining a more wonderful thing. Seriously. No joke. Marriage can be pretty awesome, guys. My folks have been married over 34 years, and they seem to be just getting happier. My wife and I will hit 4 later this month and it seems like every year that goes by the bad stuff shrinks and the good stuff gets better. My wife's parents seem pretty contented, too, though they're both falling apart physically (decades of smoking does that to people). Add in three sets of still-married grandparents (and the last set is no longer married due to the death of my wife's grandfather from Alzheimer's Disease) between my family and my wife's and it's a bit hard for me to see why so many people look at marriage as a horror to be avoided at all costs. I'd be perfectly fine being married for centuries as long as I got to stay married to the person I'm married to now.

Lucky you.

My parents are practically the only happily married couple in my family. Excluding one of my aunts (just plain not interested) and one uncle (gay), every other member of my extended family has been married at least once. Some more than once. None of them happy.

My paternal grandparents have been close to killing each other for fifty years. My uncle has been divorced twice, and has been driven to severe alcoholism as a result. One of my aunts has been married three times, and has extracted significant settlements from each husband (all now deceased). Another of my uncles has been living with his girlfriend for seventeen years, and has two young daughters.

The family of one of my best friends has it worse. Both of his parents have divorced and remarried, as have ALL of his grandparents. He's told me that, when you're growing up, it is a bizarre situation coming to the realization that you're the only one of your friends with ten grandparents.

In short, people in yourfamily may enjoy long, happy marriages (there could be underlying problems- who knows?), but that does NOT mean that marriage is right for everyone. I mean, just look at me. I can barely hold down a steady girlfriend for more than a couple of months. I'm not trying to piss people off here, but what works for some people DOES NOT always work for everyone.

Liberty's Edge

Timespike wrote:
Kruelaid wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
exactly. but, that is EXACTLY what you get when you try to translate compassion into policy.
None of the questions asked me to speculate about the consequences of lawmaking based on my compassion.
It's my experience that many don't care. I'm all for compassion, by the way, it's just that governments are inherently dispassionate. If you want REAL compassion out of an organization, it needs almost by definition to be a private not-for-profit. If I were a disaster victim, I'd much rather see Salvation army or Red Cross trucks & personnel than FEMA ones, for instance. It's also a very bad idea to put a government agency between you and anything you'll ever need quickly. Like medical care.

Right on the money, man.

Liberty's Edge

Set wrote:
If *real* conservatives (yanno, the ones who believe that government should stay the heck out of our private lives, bedrooms, bank accounts, phone lines, emails, etc.) ever come back into power, I'll welcome them back and ask where the hell they were when their movement got hijacked by the current batch, who've expanded the size, power and price-tag of the federal government more than any so-called 'big government' administration ever dreamed of doing.

ALL-F*#$ING-RIGHT! THAT's what I'm talking about!

Just for the record, I think that the South should have won the Civil War, and that mankind should return to a hunter-gatherer society.


The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:


Just for the record, I think that the South should have won the Civil War, and that mankind should return to a hunter-gatherer society.

Explain.

Liberty's Edge

Freehold DM wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:


Just for the record, I think that the South should have won the Civil War, and that mankind should return to a hunter-gatherer society.
Explain.

Point a.) In my opinion, the smaller a country, the more efficiently it is usually run. Therefore, the South should have won. Nothing to do with slavery. And plus, it would have given the *Great United States* a real kick in the teeth.

Point b.) This is unreasonable due to the entrenched system we call *civilization*, but I believe that the Neolithic Revolution is the single worst thing to happen to the human race, and to the world as a whole. The introduction of civilization caused the human population to explode, which necessitated to an expansion of civilized areas. This caused a drain on natural resources, which in turn caused living conditions to worsen, necessitating more expansion. The original vicious spiral.

Also, humans just weren't cut out to live past forty or so. As soon as our bodies begin their decline, in the past, we would die of disease, get eaten by animals (or people), or something of that ilk. In the modern era, there is so much reduction of risk that humans live to be eighty and older, which creates a drain on resources, deepening the spiral. I'd rather die in the prime of life than in bed at age nenety, connected to a breathing apparatus and pissing into a bag through a tube.

Finally, all of the so-called "advances" in society have not really advanced us at all. Ancient humans most likely actually had more free time than the modern man. Just think about it. Take the scenario given:

13,000 B.C. - Family group: two grown adult males (35 and 20), three grown adult females (30, 25, and 18), two male adolescents (13 and 15), two female adolescents (13 and 15), two young children.
The males spend nine hours per day hunting, returning home with a wild boar- enough food for the entire group for several days. The women spend eight hours repairing clothing and weapons, as well as smoking meat from the previous hunt. Female adolescents spend five hours gathering edible plants. Factoring in eight hours of sleep per individual, this leaves 38 net hours of "free" time- about 57% of the total time (not counting the young children).

A.D. 2008 - Family group: one grown adult male ("Bob" age 35), one grown adult female ("Jane" age 30), one adolescent male ("Jimmy" age 15), one adolescent female ("Sharon" age 12).
Bob spends ten hours per day working a floor job at a paper mill, making $7.95 (American) per hour. Jane stays at home, cleaning the house and preparing food, a total of nine hours. Jimmy and Sharon each spend seven hours at school. Factoring in eight hours of sleep per individual, this leaves 31 net hours of "free" time- about 48% of the total time.

Civilization causes human suffering.


"Doctor, would you say that it's time for our viewers to start clubbing each other on the head and feasting on the soft, pink tissue inside?"
"Yes I would, Kent."

Liberty's Edge

The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:

A.D. 2008 - Family group: one grown adult male ("Bob" age 35), one grown adult female ("Jane" age 30), one adolescent male ("Jimmy" age 15), one adolescent female ("Sharon" age 12).

Bob spends ten hours per day working a floor job at a paper mill, making $7.95 (American) per hour. Jane stays at home, cleaning the house and preparing food, a total of nine hours. Jimmy and Sharon each spend seven hours at school. Factoring in eight hours of sleep per individual, this leaves 31 net hours of "free" time- about 48% of the total time.

Civilization causes human suffering.

You forgot that Bob gets weekends and holidays off, as well as two weeks vacation.

You also forgot that Jimmy and Sharon do not go to school in summer or on the weekends.
Jane gets a bit hosed with no kind of vacation or weekends off, but then again she does get everyone else to do some work on the weekends.
Finally you forgot the most critical issue, the extra 40 years of life all of them get that you were sneering at previously. While they will work a considerable portion of that time they will spend an equally significant portion of it retired, making almost all of it free time.

The key test of course is how many people embrace the "suffering" that civilization causes and how many embrace the casual life of a hunter-gatherer. Even most that claim some pretense to such do not, instead just retiring from most social intercourse and just having food purchases delivered. Others at best manage to retire to a rather high tech version of subsistence farming. Few people having enjoyed the advantages of civilization on any level will willingly wander off into the wilderness to play at Grizzly Adams, primarily because they would die within a very short time due to a near total lack of the needed skills, not to mention the total lack of modern medicine.
In the end the whole thing is exposed for what it is - wishful thinking of a utopia that never was. (Redundancy intended.)

The Exchange

Samuel Weiss wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:

A.D. 2008 - Family group: one grown adult male ("Bob" age 35), one grown adult female ("Jane" age 30), one adolescent male ("Jimmy" age 15), one adolescent female ("Sharon" age 12).

Bob spends ten hours per day working a floor job at a paper mill, making $7.95 (American) per hour. Jane stays at home, cleaning the house and preparing food, a total of nine hours. Jimmy and Sharon each spend seven hours at school. Factoring in eight hours of sleep per individual, this leaves 31 net hours of "free" time- about 48% of the total time.

Civilization causes human suffering.

You forgot that Bob gets weekends and holidays off, as well as two weeks vacation.

You also forgot that Jimmy and Sharon do not go to school in summer or on the weekends.
Jane gets a bit hosed with no kind of vacation or weekends off, but then again she does get everyone else to do some work on the weekends.
Finally you forgot the most critical issue, the extra 40 years of life all of them get that you were sneering at previously. While they will work a considerable portion of that time they will spend an equally significant portion of it retired, making almost all of it free time.

The key test of course is how many people embrace the "suffering" that civilization causes and how many embrace the casual life of a hunter-gatherer. Even most that claim some pretense to such do not, instead just retiring from most social intercourse and just having food purchases delivered. Others at best manage to retire to a rather high tech version of subsistence farming. Few people having enjoyed the advantages of civilization on any level will willingly wander off into the wilderness to play at Grizzly Adams, primarily because they would die within a very short time due to a near total lack of the needed skills, not to mention the total lack of modern medicine.
In the end the whole thing is exposed for what it is - wishful thinking of a utopia that never was. (Redundancy intended.)

Perhaps Jane should get herself night vision and a taser and "hunt" the homeless urban poor for the adrenal rush. That will fill out the hours wasted being an inhouse servant to a halfwit husband who thinks women need to stay at home while he brings home the meat.

Dark Archive

The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Civilization causes human suffering.

Being a big fan of healthcare, regular meals that aren't dependent on good hunting and air conditioning, I'm on the side of suffering.

Also, books, television, movies, role-playing games, unnatural sex acts, music videos, iPods, ice cream, online games and the internet. All stuff that I *could* live without, but am not sure that I would want to. :)

I liked Fight Club, too, but, despite growing up on a farm, butchering animals, and being one of the 1% of people who wouldn't die *immediately* if sent off into the woods without any tools, I find nothing romantic about that rugged manly life. The first time I get an infected cut, I want an emergency room, not to have to press hot rocks against the injury and pray for it to burn out the infection before I get gangrene.

The Exchange

BM wrote:

Economic Left/Right: 5.50

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

Sounds about right. I'm probably a litter lower on the social score, but not by much.

I can see loaded question bit, but I think the test would better if it made it clear on whether or not its talking about what you want from government, and adding a neutral button.

OMG! Ronald Regan is back from the dead.


Ixancoatl wrote:
Set wrote:
If *real* conservatives (yanno, the ones who believe that government should stay the heck out of our private lives, bedrooms, bank accounts, phone lines, emails, etc.) ever come back into power, I'll welcome them back
Wow, and I thought I was the only one who had noticed that. I was starting to feel like I was hallucinating that. Thanks for saying it, Set. Kudos!

I'll add mine as well. Glad to see so many possible Whig voters out here!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
and that mankind should return to a hunter-gatherer society.

Sounds good man! I’m there.

But … we’ll still have the internet right?

And rock’n’roll, and beer, and literature, and Firefly, and D&D, and fast cars, and personal hygiene products, and bourbon, and ipods, and coffee, and pizza, and lazy afternoons, and skiving off work, and hanging out at friend’s places, and drunken nights out, and art, and warm beds on cold nights, and doonas, and dancing, and Arrested Development, and Playstations, and time to chill, and email, and overseas trips, and holidays, and science, and Panadol, and jeans, and comfortable shoes, and radio, and architecture, and … stuff.

Right?


yellowdingo wrote:
BM wrote:

Economic Left/Right: 5.50

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

Sounds about right. I'm probably a litter lower on the social score, but not by much.

I can see loaded question bit, but I think the test would better if it made it clear on whether or not its talking about what you want from government, and adding a neutral button.

OMG! Ronald Regan is back from the dead.

Actually my dear sir, ol' Gipper rated much higher on the Y axis, somewhere positive, if I remember +3 or so. This fine young man has the makings of a good Whig.


Personally I have one word that can solve many of today's problems both in crowding, raw materials, pollution and energy: Space. We are so focused on this small rock we sometimes forget it is a very small place indeed. Too bad it looks like America won't be leading the way :(

Hopefully in this round of exploration China will make up for burning its Treasure Fleet in the 1400's just before the Portugese arrived from around the Horn of Africa.

Liberty's Edge

The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Timespike wrote:
Garydee wrote:
Trey wrote:
Garydee wrote:


Lol! Well, it kinda depends on how far science advances by the time I'm old. I might die at 80 or if they figure a way to stall the aging process I might live twice that.
The only problem is, it would apply across the board. I can't bear the thought of 120 more years of seeing Brad and Angelina stories at the supermarket checkout.
That's true. The problem with a long lifespan would be marriage. Could you imagine being married to same the person for centuries?
If that was the right person, I would have difficulty imagining a more wonderful thing. Seriously. No joke. Marriage can be pretty awesome, guys. My folks have been married over 34 years, and they seem to be just getting happier. My wife and I will hit 4 later this month and it seems like every year that goes by the bad stuff shrinks and the good stuff gets better. My wife's parents seem pretty contented, too, though they're both falling apart physically (decades of smoking does that to people). Add in three sets of still-married grandparents (and the last set is no longer married due to the death of my wife's grandfather from Alzheimer's Disease) between my family and my wife's and it's a bit hard for me to see why so many people look at marriage as a horror to be avoided at all costs. I'd be perfectly fine being married for centuries as long as I got to stay married to the person I'm married to now.
Lucky you.

And don't think I don't know it!

The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:

My parents are practically the only happily married couple in my family. Excluding one of my aunts (just plain not interested) and one uncle (gay), every other member of my extended family has been married at least once. Some more than once. None of them happy.

My paternal grandparents have been close to killing each other for fifty years. My uncle has been divorced twice, and has been driven to severe alcoholism as a result. One of my aunts has been married three times, and has extracted significant...

OW! None of this diminishes the central point I was making, however: that a happy, healthy marriage gets old in the same way fine Scotch does; mellowing and improving with age. I realize that a lot of people fail to achieve this, but that doesn't mean that marriage as a concept is wrong for it.

Liberty's Edge

yellowdingo wrote:
BM wrote:

Economic Left/Right: 5.50

Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

Sounds about right. I'm probably a litter lower on the social score, but not by much.

I can see loaded question bit, but I think the test would better if it made it clear on whether or not its talking about what you want from government, and adding a neutral button.

OMG! Ronald Regan is back from the dead.

Sweet! Let's get him back into the white house, STAT!

Scarab Sages

Don't worry, Timespike, you're not alone.

Liberty's Edge

Set wrote:
Timespike wrote:
Egads. I knew gamers were a liberal lot, but come on now, there aren't ANY more traditional conservatives taking that test?

The current batch of people who call themselves 'conservatives,' who are in bed with the people who consider our favorite pastime 'that devil-worship game,' have done a great job of turning gamers against them. As long as they take their money from the religious leaders who say that America deserved 9/11 and that God invented IEDs to punish us and that Katrina was sent to stop a gay pride parade in New Orleans, they'll continue to alienate people who have souls. When the candidate for President *actively seeks out endorsements from these people,* in the hopes of getting their votes and money, it doesn't reflect well upon their movement, or their morals, or their right to call themselves human beings.

If *real* conservatives (yanno, the ones who believe that government should stay the heck out of our private lives, bedrooms, bank accounts, phone lines, emails, etc.) ever come back into power, I'll welcome them back and ask where the hell they were when their movement got hijacked by the current batch, who've expanded the size, power and price-tag of the federal government more than any so-called 'big government' administration ever dreamed of doing.

I'd love to have them back, too. They should have cloned Reagan. Or, hell, maybe just go straight to the source and clone the founding fathers. I don't want ANYbody oppressed.

Dark Archive

Set wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Civilization causes human suffering.

Being a big fan of healthcare, regular meals that aren't dependent on good hunting and air conditioning, I'm on the side of suffering.

Also, books, television, movies, role-playing games, unnatural sex acts, music videos, iPods, ice cream, online games and the internet. All stuff that I *could* live without, but am not sure that I would want to. :)

I liked Fight Club, too, but, despite growing up on a farm, butchering animals, and being one of the 1% of people who wouldn't die *immediately* if sent off into the woods without any tools, I find nothing romantic about that rugged manly life. The first time I get an infected cut, I want an emergency room, not to have to press hot rocks against the injury and pray for it to burn out the infection before I get gangrene.

Seconded. On everything you said.(Sans the last part. I would be SOL if I had to suddenly survive in the wild. I would give myself a 50/50 chance of living.)

We have too much cool things going on. We have the internet, powerful computers, and just starting to get AR, cybernetics, bio-tech going. It shaping up that in the next 50 years or so, we're going to resemble Shadow Run (tech-wise) at the rate we're going. The number of interesting and cool things that computer and bio-tech fields is just awesome.

Besides, by the time I'm 70, we should have cyber-bodies for me to swap into. Its win-win for me. I get to live really long and not deal with having a crappy body when I'm old. :P


Timespike wrote:
Set wrote:
Timespike wrote:
Egads. I knew gamers were a liberal lot, but come on now, there aren't ANY more traditional conservatives taking that test?

The current batch of people who call themselves 'conservatives,' who are in bed with the people who consider our favorite pastime 'that devil-worship game,' have done a great job of turning gamers against them. As long as they take their money from the religious leaders who say that America deserved 9/11 and that God invented IEDs to punish us and that Katrina was sent to stop a gay pride parade in New Orleans, they'll continue to alienate people who have souls. When the candidate for President *actively seeks out endorsements from these people,* in the hopes of getting their votes and money, it doesn't reflect well upon their movement, or their morals, or their right to call themselves human beings.

If *real* conservatives (yanno, the ones who believe that government should stay the heck out of our private lives, bedrooms, bank accounts, phone lines, emails, etc.) ever come back into power, I'll welcome them back and ask where the hell they were when their movement got hijacked by the current batch, who've expanded the size, power and price-tag of the federal government more than any so-called 'big government' administration ever dreamed of doing.

I'd love to have them back, too. They should have cloned Reagan. Or, hell, maybe just go straight to the source and clone the founding fathers. I don't want ANYbody oppressed.

You're right, I wish we could have Reagan back. A lot of the Neocons (not all of them though) are ruining our party.


As an outsider looking at the Republican party, I've gotta say, it's really a tragedy what has happened. Good luck cleaning it up.


Using government to regulate morals is like trying to secure a 3" screw in place with piece of concrete . It can be done, but the resulting mess makes you wonder why you bothered to try in the first place.

This also applies to government disbursing money to the needy.

WHIGS in 2012!


Eustace Q. Figg, Chairman WNC wrote:
like trying to secure a 3" screw in place with piece of concrete.

You mean I should be using 2 5/8" instead?

I thought those were supposed to be put in using a brick.


Trey wrote:
Eustace Q. Figg, Chairman WNC wrote:
like trying to secure a 3" screw in place with piece of concrete.

You mean I should be using 2 5/8" instead?

I thought those were supposed to be put in using a brick.

That sir is what Libertarians use. Slightly less mess, roughly the same outcome.


Set wrote:
... who say that America deserved 9/11 and that God invented IEDs to punish us and that Katrina was sent to stop a gay pride parade in New Orleans, they'll continue to alienate people who have souls.

Yeah! Especially those sick puppies that say things like, "China getting hit with an earthquake and killing thousands, that's karma, isn't it?" Damn sick people.


Eustace Q. Figg, Chairman WNC wrote:
Trey wrote:
Eustace Q. Figg, Chairman WNC wrote:
like trying to secure a 3" screw in place with piece of concrete.

You mean I should be using 2 5/8" instead?

I thought those were supposed to be put in using a brick.

That sir is what Libertarians use. Slightly less mess, roughly the same outcome.

This is fascinating! I always assumed that the Libertarians used nothing but dry set masonry, feeling that fasteners, adhesives, or mortar of any kind are an affront to the natural rights of the building materials, whose decision to associate together in a structure ought to be made according to their own conscience, not imposed by threat of force from a contractor.

The Exchange

pres man wrote:
Set wrote:
... who say that America deserved 9/11 and that God invented IEDs to punish us and that Katrina was sent to stop a gay pride parade in New Orleans, they'll continue to alienate people who have souls.
Yeah! Especially those sick puppies that say things like, "China getting hit with an earthquake and killing thousands, that's karma, isn't it?" Damn sick people.

They are not just in the US ya know! My mum holidayed in the peoples republic of Kanada visiting friends and the christmas message for the comming 2005 newyear was the "asians had that tsunami comming for not being christians".

The Christian fundamentalists are out of control. Considering String Theory invalidates Religion and Evolution I think we should deport them to Labour camps in Antartica - that way they can have fight club in the snow for food and we can have happy they are gone parties.


Can't we just appoint an Emperor? A brave leader, charismatic and just?
Resolute and steadfast in his concerns for the citizenry? A leader worth following....


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Timespike wrote:


Sweet! Let's get him back into the white house, STAT!

As much as I opposed Reagan's politics (and still would do so) it really took the current administration to make me appreciate the fact that Reagan at least had a vision of what America should be. It was a vision I didn't share, but it was a vision that he believed passionately in. I don't think anyone in the current administration is capable of that.

Scarab Sages

yellowdingo wrote:
pres man wrote:
Set wrote:
... who say that America deserved 9/11 and that God invented IEDs to punish us and that Katrina was sent to stop a gay pride parade in New Orleans, they'll continue to alienate people who have souls.
Yeah! Especially those sick puppies that say things like, "China getting hit with an earthquake and killing thousands, that's karma, isn't it?" Damn sick people.

They are not just in the US ya know! My mum holidayed in the peoples republic of Kanada visiting friends and the christmas message for the comming 2005 newyear was the "asians had that tsunami comming for not being christians".

The Christian fundamentalists are out of control. Considering String Theory invalidates Religion and Evolution I think we should deport them to Labour camps in Antartica - that way they can have fight club in the snow for food and we can have happy they are gone parties.

Yeah the world would be so much better with out Christians. Eyeroll...

351 to 400 of 697 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / The "keep your political crap outta my game forum" thread All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.