Sara Palin says Obama associates with Terrorists


Off-Topic Discussions

401 to 450 of 472 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

pres man wrote:
Brent wrote:
Samuel Weiss wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Mainly because he seems to be allergic to making sense.

No, I am only allergic to loud mouthed fools with no comprehension of history or government.

Their allergic reaction to rational thought and fact produces antibodies that cause a severe counter-reaction in me, leading ultimately to severe humiliation for them.
That is a rather elitist perspective. I can't speak to any of your views beyond this... When you dismiss those who have different views as "loud mouth fools with no comprehension of history or government", then it probably has a tendency to provoke a venemous reaction. Perhaps a more civil means of disagreement would help supress the "severe counter-reaction" you experience when talking to those that don't share your beliefs?

Well Brent, I would assume you read all of the comments that lead to this, but if you didn't, here are the initial ones, keep in mind Samuel hadn't said anything leading up to this directly, so it was coming out of left field, nor did he say anything between this particular statements.

The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Yeah, where's Sam Weiss when you need him...
Kruelaid wrote:
Word.
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Mainly because he seems to be allergic to making sense.
Kruelaid wrote:
He debates?
Kruelaid wrote:
If belittling people and irrationally denying facts that weaken your stance is debate then Sam is fantastic.
Samuel was basically being character assassinated for no real purpose. I would hope that you are not defending such conduct.

I did read them, and here is my take on each of your quotes....

"Where is Sam Weiss when you need him?"

My take: Don't see how this is even a little inflammatory. It's just asking where Sam is. I presume because he often participates in these political discussions.

"Word"

My take: Just an agreement with the first post on wondering where Sam is.

"Mainly because he seems to be allergic to making sense"

My take: I see this as a humorous and somewhat affectionate jab at another poster. But I can see how others would view it in a more personally offensive way. So lets focus on that interpretation for a minute. If this was a serious insult to Sam, I see the comment as a matter of personal opinion. I've heard people who I know are intelligent make the most nonsensical statements I have heard when they get on the "Republicans ROCK!!!" or "Democrats RULE!!" kicks that so often characterize political debate. I don't know if Sam makes sense or not. But I don't assume he doesn't just because I haven't read what he said. This one would be less offensive if it had an example of something non-sensical that he did say. I will also point out that what makes "sense" is largely a matter of your personal belief system. I've heard statements given as "fact" that were so far from rational thought that I got an aneurysm just trying to read it. I'm sure there are some who say the same things about some of my views. Anyway, I will concede that this could be taken as a "character assasination". It would depend on the history between the posters I guess. Since I don't know what that is, I will just err on the side of saying this was probably an out of line comment.

"He debates?"

My take: Not sure if this is a sarcastic comment trying to say that it is a joke to say Sam debates or if it is a legit question asking if Sam debates from someone who doesn't know. Assuming it is sarcasm, I would say it sounds like they have a personal history with him. If that history includes lots of comments like the one about others all being ignorant fools, I understand the hostility. Again, I don't know what those discussions have been like so I can't comment with any certainty. If it is a legit question, then I don't see how this is acerbic at all.

"If belittling people and irrationally denying facts that weaken your stance is debate then Sam is fantastic."

My take: Ok, this provides context to the last quote. It is clearly sarcasm in the last post. So that makes that one a bit more abrassive. On this one, I would say whether or not it is offensive depends on if it is true or not. I haven't debated with Sam, so is it true that he does that? If he does, then I would say he deserves what he gets. If that is a misrepresentation, then it is definately a "character assasination". I can't speak for what Sam does, but I do know this. I have seen more than my share of political debates where a person will simply dismiss every piece of evidence that doesn't support their view as though their dismission makes those facts untrue. Few things are more annoying in a debate than a person who responds to every counter argument like a brick wall. If your primary debate method is to simply dismiss every point your opponent makes, then you aren't a tenth the debator that you probably think you are. The assertion by Sam that he always humiliates the fools who know nothing about our history or government implies an arrogance about his debate abilities that probably supports the notion that he just arrogantly rejects everything his opponent said. I have never met a truely talented debator that would say that they always humiliate every opponent. People who care about true debate will acknowledge that their opponents have valid points. True talent lies in being able to take those strong points in the oppositional argument and still more effectively debate your own position. Noone has absolute truth on their side. If they think they do, then they are an irrational boob that doesn't understand debate at all.

Anyway, I don't know that I agree that what we saw here was a character assasination. To me it seems like a continuation of an argument that was going on long before this thread. The fact that the right wing posters use Sam's name like he was the supreme champion of debating their side, and the left wing posters dismissed him with some sarcasm implies to me that he is a vigorous poster who probably has an aggressive debate style and uses rationale that at least a few posters on the other side find completely without factual basis.

I don't know if that is accurate, but there is more going on with that conversation than what happened in this thread. That much seems fairly evident to me after reading back through it.


Guy Humual wrote:
Garydee wrote:


Don't you just love the mainstream media?

American news is horrible. Some might say Fox news started this downward spiral, mindlessly supporting the Republican party regardless of their actions, but I suspect that the trend started with CNN. When you're on 24 hours a day you need to fill the time with something. There's also a huge problem in my mind with so much of the industry controlled by so few. The free news media is a thing of the past.

I can only hope that this trend doesn't spread north.

Yeah, bias in news is terrible in the American press. There's no "fair" reporting of the news. Fox is excessively right wing and CNN/MSNBC is excessively left wing. I don't know of any place where you can get "down the middle" news.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Garydee wrote:
Heathansson wrote:
Tarren Dei wrote:
Heathansson wrote:


(lol) my wife saw your avatar, Tarren. She said, "Look! It's Joe the Plumber!"
No relation. I'm licensed, pay my taxes, support my union, and prefer Obama.
*whew* I'm so glad they're investigating this guy's economic history. I feel safer now.
Don't you just love the mainstream media?

Until Heathansson's wife's comment I'd never heard of the guy, so take my response with a grain of salt. That's just the first hit that came up on google.

Isn't this whole thread about the politics of character assassination though? Who would want to get into politics these days?


Tarren Dei wrote:


Isn't this whole thread about the politics of character assassination though? Who would want to get into politics these days?

Not me I've got an entire lichyard in my closet. I don't even want to visit a rally now, let alone run for office.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Patrick Curtin wrote:
Tarren Dei wrote:


Isn't this whole thread about the politics of character assassination though? Who would want to get into politics these days?
Not me I've got an entire lichyard in my closet. I don't even want to visit a rally now, let alone run for office.

I wouldn't want to throw public support behind a candidate. Note, I've played in a PFS adventure. You're all tainted now. None of can ever be made president.

Liberty's Edge

Tarren Dei wrote:
Garydee wrote:
Heathansson wrote:
Tarren Dei wrote:
Heathansson wrote:


(lol) my wife saw your avatar, Tarren. She said, "Look! It's Joe the Plumber!"
No relation. I'm licensed, pay my taxes, support my union, and prefer Obama.
*whew* I'm so glad they're investigating this guy's economic history. I feel safer now.
Don't you just love the mainstream media?

Until Heathansson's wife's comment I'd never heard of the guy, so take my response with a grain of salt. That's just the first hit that came up on google.

Isn't this whole thread about the politics of character assassination though? Who would want to get into politics these days?

I know, but he's not running for anything.

I think it's sad that the media seems more concerned about smearing him than examining Obama's response to the man. Obama's running for POTUS, guys.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

If I may break character for a moment, I've been thinking about this whole ridiculous exchange, and it strikes me that I'm not doing Paizo any favors participating in these threads or (generally) engaging in any conversation with Sam. I'm sure he's probably a swell guy who doesn't kick dogs, has a nice family that loves him, and enjoys him some D&D. I don't particularly like his posting style, but, eh, who cares. I don't have to like it. And, I probably don't like it because it reminds me of my own tendancies towards arrogance and dismissiveness (and, for the sake of avoiding slipping in an attack when I am trying not to, let me be clear that Sam may well not be objectively arrogant or dismissive, to the extent an objective determination regarding those qualities can be made, but I am reminded of those qualities in myself by his posts, which says more about me than it does about him). In any event, I have not had any successful exchanges with him, I doubt I will in the future, and it's not all that interesting to keep going round the bush every month or so.

These politics threads in general are also like this. Though I have grown to respect some posters as a result of their participation (Aberzombie probably being the one that stands out most to me), there are others who've left a bad taste in my mouth. But again, who cares, Whether or not I like what someone has to say on any particular topic has nothing to do with the kind of person they really are.

Here's where I should make some dramatic proclamation that I will never respond to Sam again or never participate in a politics thread again, but I doubt I can commit to that (hell, I can't even commit to staying out of a thread I should know better than to avoid), but, I will try and cut back, at least in the short term, out of respect for Josh Frost and the Paizo staff who have enough flame wars in the playtest threads and enough important things to do without being distracted by the nastiness I've helped perpetuate in threads like this.

Apologies Paizoians, including Sam and pres man, for participating in this spectacle.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Heathansson wrote:


I know, but he's not running for anything.
I think it's sad that the media seems more concerned about smearing him than examining Obama's response to the man. Obama's running for POTUS, guys.

What was Obama's resonse? I honestly only heard of this guy today.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Sebastian wrote:
<snip>

Vigorous debate can be respectful. Much of this has been.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Tarren Dei wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
<snip>
Vigorous debate can be respectful. Much of this has been.

And, you do an admirable job in that regard. Me...not so much... ;-)

I get irritated when I feel people are being willfully obtuse, which again, says more about me than their actual obtuseness, willful or otherwise. As a general rule, I'd say most of what I perceive as obtuseness is really just differing assumptions and experiences. I mean, come on, how could you not think what I think when it's so blindingly obvious and logical to me?!?!?! I imagine they think the same regarding my level of obtuseness.

Dark Archive

Tarren Dei wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
<snip>
Vigorous debate can be respectful. Much of this has been.

QFT

In fact I would argue that the best and most vigourous debates are very respectful. As an example, in the last debate between Obama and McCain the thing that I felt McCain did that hurt him more than anything else was lose his cool. He had some pretty good points to make, but let his temper get the best of him. Even if you have the best argument in the world, if you give it in an angry way a lot of your message will be lost. I don't think Obama nailed any of the debates. What I do think he did, was maintain his composure against McCain causing McCain to come across as desparate and angry even if he wasn't.

McCain has some great ideas. I also think Obama has some bad ones. I just think that Obama has MORE good ideas. Palin disturbs me for reasons I have articulated in many threads before this one. Bidin is the very definition of a "blah" running mate. Not inspiring or discouraging. Just kind of there. There are some really great debates happening on these boards that are both educational and very insightful on both sides. A lot of it comes down to personal beliefs. Still, I have learned a lot from reading these threads and participating from time to time. Certainly I feel like there is a lot of very reasonable debate happening. It just lower in volume compared to the over the top stuff.

Sovereign Court

From an outsider's point of view, I like both Obama and McCain, but Palin worries me. I don't know enough about her and what little I've seen does seem worrying.

She is however ripe for satire: Behold Palin as president

Liberty's Edge

Tarren Dei wrote:
Heathansson wrote:


I know, but he's not running for anything.
I think it's sad that the media seems more concerned about smearing him than examining Obama's response to the man. Obama's running for POTUS, guys.
What was Obama's resonse? I honestly only heard of this guy today.

Joe the Plumber, unedited


Frankly I find it humorous when anyone worries overly much about any of the people running. I'm just not that worried. Obama isn't going to come into my house and take all my money and make me live on food stamps. McCain isn't some crazy old kook. Palin isn't going to nuke Russia "because god told her to". And Biden ... well its Biden, as said above, pretty blah, he isn't going to do anything overly dangerous either.

The Republicans don't only care about the rich, they just have different ideas of how to help the poor. The Democrats aren't communists looking to nationalize everything, they just have a different view as to where the line should be.

In elections we tend to look at the extremes to point out the differences but as with almost all things moderation is almost always the best choice.

Which is part of the reason I prefer McCain. He's shown he is willing to set partisianship aside at times (maybe not as much as some would want), I haven't seen anything from Obama to make me believe he would. Instead he is making statements similar to Bush's back in 2000 about how he wants to work across the aisle. If the choice is between someone saying they will and someone that has, I choose someone who has demonstrated it. But if Obama wins, I am not going to run and hide and hope he doesn't come get me. We'll be fine either way. Most of the problems people have in their daily lives are brought on by themselves more than anyone else.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

I may have a raging jackass inside but I try to keep him inside in case my son reads these posts. I try to remember the example of Pierre Trudeau given by his son in a eulogy:

Spoiler:
There were certain basic principles that could never be compromised.

As I guess it is for most kids, in Grade 3, it was always a real treat to visit my dad at work.

As on previous visits this particular occasion included a lunch at the parliamentary restaurant which always seemed to be terribly important and full of serious people that I didn't recognize.

But at eight, I was becoming politically aware. And I recognized one whom I knew to be one of my father's chief rivals.

Thinking of pleasing my father, I told a joke about him -- a generic, silly little grade school thing.

My father looked at me sternly with that look I would learn to know so well, and said: `Justin, Never attack the individual. We can be in total disagreement with someone without denigrating them as a consequence.'

Saying that, he stood up and took me by the hand and brought me over to introduce me to this man. He was a nice man who was eating there with his daughter, a nice-looking blond girl a little younger than I was.

He spoke to me in a friendly manner for a bit and it was at that point that I understood that having opinions that are different from those of another does not preclude one being deserving of respect as an individual.

This simple tolerance and (recognition of) the real and profound dimensions of each human being, regardless of beliefs, origins, or values — that's what he expected of his children and that's what he expected of our country.

He demanded this with love, love of his sons, love of his country, and it's for this that we so love the letters, the flowers, the dignity of the crowds, and we say to him, farewell.

All that to thank him for having loved us so much.

Sovereign Court

pres man wrote:

Frankly I find it humorous when anyone worries overly much about any of the people running. I'm just not that worried. Obama isn't going to come into my house and take all my money and make me live on food stamps. McCain isn't some crazy old kook. Palin isn't going to nuke Russia "because god told her to". And Biden ... well its Biden, as said above, pretty blah, he isn't going to do anything overly dangerous either.

The Republicans don't only care about the rich, they just have different ideas of how to help the poor. The Democrats aren't communists looking to nationalize everything, they just have a different view as to where the line should be.

In elections we tend to look at the extremes to point out the differences but as with almost all things moderation is almost always the best choice.

Which is part of the reason I prefer McCain. He's shown he is willing to set partisianship aside at times (maybe not as much as some would want), I haven't seen anything from Obama to make me believe he would. Instead he is making statements similar to Bush's back in 2000 about how he wants to work across the aisle. If the choice is between someone saying they will and someone that has, I choose someone who has demonstrated it. But if Obama wins, I am not going to run and hide and hope he doesn't come get me. We'll be fine either way. Most of the problems people have in their daily lives are brought on by themselves more than anyone else.

Well said, sir.

Sovereign Court

Tarren Dei wrote:
I may have a raging jackass inside but I try to keep him inside in case my son reads these posts. I try to remember the example of Pierre Trudeau

I think there can be a lot learned from P.E.T., I can't say that I agreed with everything he did, but he certainly was a visionary and left a lasting mark on Canadian history.

Liberty's Edge

Brent wrote:
That is a rather elitist perspective. I can't speak to any of your views beyond this... When you dismiss those who have different views as "loud mouth fools with no comprehension of history or government", then it probably has a tendency to provoke a venemous reaction. Perhaps a more civil means of disagreement would help supress the "severe counter-reaction" you experience when talking to those that don't share your beliefs?

Except I do not do that.

I only dismiss those who dive right into personal attacks rather than attempting a reasoned rebuttal as such. If all someone has is an accusation of using "right wing talking points", a characterization of people as "morons and fanatics", and casual sneers on ability to debate or position within the political spectrum, then I feel no obligation to address them in a civil manner.
People who simply disagree with me, presenting direct arguments in opposition I accept as people having different views, no matter how much I disagree, or even find their views antithetical to what I consider mandatory for a proper government.
If such a standard is too "elitist", then I will just have to accept that label.

Liberty's Edge

pres man wrote:
Well Samuel, looks like you are getting a lot of venom for nothing. Maybe it is due to kool-aid drinking, I-play-a-lawyer-on-the-internet fanboys, or just random attacks. Anyway, good luck to you my friend.

Thank you.

Liberty's Edge

yellowdingo wrote:

Dont say it unless you mean to run...What is it? "The Stars are Right!"

Sam Weiss for El President 2012

Platform


  • Relocate the Whitehouse to the Moon
  • Extend the Presidential Term to Life
  • Declare dominion over the Earth

I would love to live on the moon.

It would mean the space program has advanced so much that we can establish permanent settlements there. That would almost certainly require advanced gravitic technology. That would likely mean the technology to expand througout the solar system.

I would not want to be President for Life.
While the raw power would be fun, I prefer the gratuitous self-indulgence of being a Gamer for Life. And history has shown that leaders who indulge their power by ordering advisors or guards to indulge their desires for entertainment make "Life" an exceptionally short term of office.

Dominion over the Earth would be useful only as far as it would signify a true unification of all humanity under an appropriate, Constitutional federal republic, goverment type.
If that were achieved, the United States would be an appropriate successor to the United States of America, and the United States of Sol an even better successor.

I can see the second as being negative, but why do you find the other two as being so outrageous?
Are advanced space travel and colonization, and advanced government unit really such horrible things to you?

Liberty's Edge

Sebastian wrote:
I no longer bother engaging in the back-and-forth of Sam's "reasoning" anymore, I just skip to the end and tell him he's wrong. It's as productive as engaging in the actual discussion, but takes less time and achieves the same result (Sam is wrong, attacks me for pointing out that he is wrong, calls me one of the things listed above, and claims he's right and innocent and that he won the argument).

As always Sebastian, you continue to lie in an attempt to excuse yourself from any responsibility.

You have never managed to point out any factual point on which on I am "wrong", and you persist in believing that your ad hominems demonstrate any error in my political positions.
It is true that there is no actual "argument" to be won with you. All there is to it is waiting for you to start lying when your hysterial ranting is challenged.

Sovereign Court

Samuel Weiss wrote:

Dominion over the Earth would be useful only as far as it would signify a true unification of all humanity under an appropriate, Constitutional federal republic, goverment type.

If that were achieved, the United States would be an appropriate successor to the United States of America, and the United States of Sol an even better successor.

I think a world government would be neat (though completely infeasible), but I think there are six billion people on the planet who wouldn't be too fond of the name 'United States of Sol.'

We would probably come up with a new name. I suggest 'United Federation of Awesomeness.' That way, alien visitors would know what they're dealing with!

Sovereign Court

Wow from Palin and Terrorists to United States of Sol

The Off-Topic Boards, where staying on topic causes allergic reactions :)

Sovereign Court

lastknightleft wrote:

Wow from Palin and Terrorists to United States of Sol

The Off-Topic Boards, where staying on topic causes allergic reactions :)

I was breaking out just a minute ago, so I figured it was cool to follow the world government train of thought... :)

Liberty's Edge

Brent wrote:
I did read them, and here is my take on each of your quotes....

Have you read the whole thread?

Let us consider:

Sebastian wrote:

Oh look, there's the Alaskan Independence Party! Maybe the brave souls willing to uncover Obama's imagined associations and radical leanings will want to look at that too to make sure none of the candidates for president/vice-president are similarly tainted.

Anyone?

What's that you say? The AIP stuff is just a bunch of crap that only morons and fanatics think is important or relevant? Your not interested in truth for the sake of truth? You just want to sling mud and innuendo and disguise it behind questions regarding honesty, and even then, only for your side?

Oh yeah...

Morons and fanatics, FTW.

So "morons and fanatics".

Sebastian wrote:

Wow. That's a pitiful attempt to scrape together some sort of proof. But, like I said before, as long as you're willing to apply such a narrow definition of telling the truth to all political candidates, that's fine by me. I guess you must be equally upset by Sarah Palin's changing story on the Bridge to Nowhere.

And, I bet you wouldn't take Todd Palin's answers at face value regarding the AIL either. You would still claim he wasn't truthful, and that the associations represent faulty judgment, no matter what he claimed about his involvement.

Yup. I'm certain of it.

Now someone else's rebuttal is a "pitiful attempt", as well as lacking a commitment to the truth.

Further, he is "certain" of another person's views on yet another matter.

Now a reply from me, providing a rebuttal with information:

Samuel Weiss wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
I guess that makes them entirely innocent and peachy people after all. My bad. I guess I should've discounted whatever they did or said or advocated because they are associated with a republican candidate.

Actually, it does.

Well, innocent at least. For peachy, see further comments.
At no point have they advocated any illegal acts.
At no point have they committed any illegal acts.
The founder of the party, who died before Todd Palin registered as a member, certainly said a number of things quite disparaging of the US, pretty moronic things as far as I am concerned, but he never said anything about blowing things up.
The platform of the party had in fact changed by the time Todd Palin joined, and it is currently affiliated with the Constitution Party. not that I consider that any particular endorsement of rational beliefs on their part, but nobody makes any effort to denounce any of the various libertarian parties for being stupid.

Sebastian wrote:
Plus, it's not really fair to associate Palin with them like it is to associate Obama with terrorism. I mean, come on, Palin only participated in the activities of a group that says inflammatory things about America (or something like that, I can't really be bothered enough to care, honestly), Obama on the other hand once was part of an organization which was focused around education with someone who once did something very bad in the distant past! Clearly, Obama is the worse person. How dare he join a school board where someone else with a disagreeable past served! That bastard!!!

Well actually, it is fair to associate Obama with the terrorist Bill Ayers, as it is fair to associate everyone else who accepted his political support, which is what Obama did, despite his lying about it during the debate the other night.

There is a very strong contrast between going to a picnic with a pack of whacked out secessionist libertarians and starting your political career with a meet and greet at the home of a terrorist whose only regret is that his organization did not kill and terrorize more people before their incompetence literally blew their plans up.

This is why Obama is a disaster waiting to happen. With supporters willing to create such equivalencies in a desperate attempt to justify anything and everything he has done, no one should expect him to have any limits on his actions once he has power.

Yes, I am quite dismissive of Sebastian at the end, but then we have already seen how he reacts to any dissent.

What does he, in all his innocence, have in response?

Sebastian wrote:

Sweet, sweet irony. If only it could be appreciated. But, we all know the extreme right is without fault and perfect in every way.

The rest is just the usual baseless assertions and self-serving characterizations, and not worth refuting again.

Morons and fanatics.

Note, no actual rebuttal to anything I wrote, just an absolute dismissal of it, along with his happy sneering at the "extreme right" and yet another reference to "morons and fanatics". Yet somehow he is pure as the driven snow, lacking any responsibility for the tone of the discourse.

And he continues:

Sebastian wrote:

I agree - the AIL stuff is stupid, and yet it is repeated with as much vitriol and conviction by the morons and fanatics on the far left as the Ayers crap is repeated by the morons and fanatics of the far right. Neither charge has a place in inteligent politcal conversations.

Edit: In any event, I'm done with this thread. I just hope all the hate and bigotry being stirred up by tactics like this doesn't take this country in a direction no one wants to see. The Timothy McVeigh's of this country will no doubt fully internalize the 'he's a terrorist' line and take it to its logical conclusion once the election is over. I hope losing an election is worth it.

Double Secret Edit: Okay, one more post for my number one fan, Sam Weiss, whose non-sequitor arguments and personal attacks I always love!

Now everyone is a moron and fanatic!"

And of course there is hate and bigotry everywhere, and we will all become terrorists, or at least incite them, just because we fail to appreciate his insights.

Finally to cap it now:

Sebastian wrote:

And, you do an admirable job in that regard. Me...not so much... ;-)

I get irritated when I feel people are being willfully obtuse, which again, says more about me than their actual obtuseness, willful or otherwise. As a general rule, I'd say most of what I perceive as obtuseness is really just differing assumptions and experiences. I mean, come on, how could you not think what I think when it's so blindingly obvious and logical to me?!?!?! I imagine they think the same regarding my level of obtuseness.

So finally an admission that he is a deliberately obnoxious poster, yet it is still everyone else's fault for provoking him to call them "morons and fanatics". How dare we not recognize that he has no self control, and is incapable of responding in a civilized manner to dissent, the same "crime" (against humanity no doubt), that I am accused of?

Brent wrote:
I don't know if that is accurate, but there is more going on with that conversation than what happened in this thread. That much seems fairly evident to me after reading back through it.

There is quite a bit more.


Nameless wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:

Wow from Palin and Terrorists to United States of Sol

The Off-Topic Boards, where staying on topic causes allergic reactions :)

I was breaking out just a minute ago, so I figured it was cool to follow the world government train of thought... :)

*ahem*...

Me and Jakey went down to the place
Where the cops wanna smash your face
Where my fellow citizens are caught up in the chase
Hey, hey, civil disobedience

Jakey grabbed a torch and burned down a buildin'
Seen the proprietor damn near kill 'im
Later had dental work to get the tooth filled in
Hey, hey, civil disobedience

Jakey ain't political but I go nuts
Jakey likes to loot but I ain't got the guts
He says fight for what's right, ain't no ifs or buts
Hey, hey, civil disobedience
Alright, alright
Hey, hey, civil disobedience

Jakey thinks militant girls are hot
If they're pro-choice, they might do it a lot
I can't vouch for him, but he's the best I got
Hey, hey, civil disobedience

Both me and Jakey got a problem with authority
Especially authority that deals without majority
Can't be too judicious for our cash is a minority
Hey, hey, civil disobedience

Jakey likes to run around throwing rocks and trash
Jacking the police cars, selling parts for cash
Popping the trunk to see if they got a stash
Hey, hey, civil disobedience
Alright, alright
Hey, hey, civil disobedience

Jakey likes to run around with a picket sign
Sometimes jail time avoiding ticket fines
One thing he can't abide is licking their behinds
Hey, hey, civil disobedience

We meet the opposition when we start a riot here
Oppose negotiations so that we make it clear
We'll cause a lot of damage and we'll cause a lot of fear
Hey, hey, civil disobedience

We like to take the stimulants, we're focused and acute
You never can tell when the cops'll snap and shoot
Never on my gravestone "he snoozed, his ass is moot"
Hey, hey, civil disobedience
Alright, alright, alright
Hey, hey, civil disobedience

We f%~@ Republicans but think they're icky
Talk of world conquest makes them sticky
You gotta beg and beg to get your dick-a-licky
Hey, hey, civil disobedience

Me and Jakey like dodging the gun
Me and Jakey like to hit-and-run
We dis the politicians but it's all in good fun
Hey, hey, civil disobedience

We got into politics to char and pillage
Maybe we can visit in your bar or village
Enter our plunder time for serious chillage
Hey, hey, civil disobedience
Alright, alright, alright
Hey, hey, civil disobedience

Alright, alright
Hey, hey, civil disobedience
Alright, alright, alright
Hey, hey, civil disobedience
Alright

Liberty's Edge

Joe the Plumber,
Can we tax him?
Joe the Plumber,
YES WE CAN!!!


Samuel Weiss wrote:
Kruelaid wrote:
You have excellent critical skills and are clearly learned but the above comment you have just made about me proves my point. To put it into simple words: you are not nice. I've been here a long time and I challenge you to find someone I have thrown venom at, other than you.

I am quite nice.

Just nice to punks who think they can make a name for themselves by attacking me.

Kruelaid wrote:
Besides, as I see it I didn't thrown venom, just crudely drew parallels between you and another unreasonable member of these boards when you had already engaged in your customary venomous tone and with your usual dismissiveness.

So having said nothing offensive to you, indeed not having said anything to you at all, you decided to just gratuitously attack me for whatever imagined reason you have to justify such an action to yourself as anything other than an attack.

Kruelaid wrote:
And for the nth time, I ask you with due respect to please refrain from telling me what I feel, and please stop impugning me.

No.

Really, no.
As long as you feel the need to randomly attack me I will feel perfectly free to phrase your motives in whatever manner I wish.
If you do not like it, correct your behavior.
If you will not, you will have to deal with me not caring about your complaints.

My bold.

That's funny. Again, telling people what they think.

And actually I was talking to Garydee, who said you 'debate', not to you.


Heathansson wrote:

Joe the Plumber,

Can we tax him?
Joe the Plumber,
YES WE CAN!!!

I just love how Obama keeps saying things like, Hey 95% will get a tax break, we are only going to screw over a special 5% of people. Who cares about them as long as you are getting yours.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

pres man wrote:
I just love how Obama keeps saying things like, Hey 95% will get a tax break, we are only going to screw over a special 5% of people. Who cares about them as long as you are getting yours.

That 'special 5%' are people who make a lot of money. In this case, over $250,000 a year. You can take a bigger cut of out that and have the person still be rich.

Liberty's Edge

pres man wrote:
Heathansson wrote:

Joe the Plumber,

Can we tax him?
Joe the Plumber,
YES WE CAN!!!
I just love how Obama keeps saying things like, Hey 95% will get a tax break, we are only going to screw over a special 5% of people. Who cares about them as long as you are getting yours.

I heard he's selling rides on the Space Shuttle to pay for the rest of his programs, so he can fulfill his campaign promises not screw the middle class. I bought one for $50 from this ACORN voting registration worker.

Sovereign Court

Ross already said what I wanted to say, but I also wanted to point out that these kinds of platforms are the basis of democracy: focus on the majority. At the end of the day, the candidates are trying to get the most votes possible, so by promising to help 95% of the people to the detriment of that 5%, a candidate will most likely win more votes than he'll lose. Sure, that 5% might be unhappy when that candidate gets elected, but that's how democracy works; not everyone can have exactly what they want.

As for the proposal, if it affected me, I'd be fine with it. If I were making more than $250k (and an American citizen), I would have no problem at all paying an extra 3% in taxes to help out others and fund government social programs. I'd be all for something like that passing in my country, in fact.

Sovereign Court

Heathansson wrote:
I heard he's selling rides on the Space Shuttle to pay for the rest of his programs, so he can fulfill his campaign promises not screw the middle class. I bought one for $50 from this ACORN voting registration worker.

Maybe that's how Lord British managed to get shot into space...

Scarab Sages

I'm getting pretty tired of Obama saying he's cutting our taxes and only raising the taxes of corporations and the rich. Does he think they won't turn around and pass the costs onto the rest of us? Of course they will! You tax the gas companies, they just raise the cost of gas. You tax Microsoft and Apple, they just raise the cost of computers and iPods. Oh...and guess who else makes more than $250K? Paizo!!!

Liberty's Edge

I think. He's gonna raise the s&!* out of taxes, then blame it on Bush for jacking up the economy. Either that, or he's going to try to convince you that you didn't understand what he was saying.
He's going to blame Bush for all the woes of the world for exactly......4 years.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Ornitorinco wrote:
I'm getting pretty tired of Obama saying he's cutting our taxes and only raising the taxes of corporations and the rich. Does he think they won't turn around and pass the costs onto the rest of us? Of course they will! You tax the gas companies, they just raise the cost of gas. You tax Microsoft and Apple, they just raise the cost of computers and iPods.

That might be an argument against corporate taxes, though the end result can't be worse than raising taxes evenly. (Since the business tax is also progressive, if it allows small businesses to have lower prices than big businesses and be competitive, that's a good thing.)

On the other hand, taxing Bill Gates or Steve Jobs won't make Microsoft or Apple raise prices.

Ornitorinco wrote:
Oh...and guess who else makes more than $250K? Paizo!!!

Corporate taxes are not the same as personal income taxes. The debate over 'small businesses' is because many business owners file their personal taxes including their business revenues, then deduct business expenses. Paizo is an LLC, so they don't just go on Lisa Stevens's taxes. I don't know Paizo's exact tax situation, and I doubt we'll get an answer, but $250,000 is not the 'magic number' for corporate taxes.


Amen to that. Bush was no saint. He increased the size of the federal government to all new heights. We need a fiscal conservative to get in there, roll up his or her sleeves and start making the cuts. Instead, here comes the most liberal senator in the country to expand the government to even greater heights.

Liberty's Edge

Kruelaid wrote:

My bold.

That's funny. Again, telling people what they think.

And actually I was talking to Garydee, who said you 'debate', not to you.

Yes it is.

Quite funny.
Hilarious actually.

And since you seem to have forgotten so soon, what you said to the entire message board was:

Kruelaid wrote:

Let me explain because I'm not coming back.

1) If belittling people and irrationally denying facts that weaken your stance is debate then Sam is fantastic.

2) IMHO, the neocons have tied the "spectrum" into knots and tossed it out the window. Furthermore, fundamentalist Christians have added another axis.

I do not care who you are replying to when you post something like that, and despite your belief, it in no way insulates you from a response, or excuses or justifies the post.

Now perhaps you have managed to convince yourself that the first point was not somehow an utterly gratuitous personal attack, particularly when I had not bothered to address anything at all to you, directly or indirectly, but for most people that is all that will ever qualify as.
So yet again:

Samuel Weiss wrote:

As long as you feel the need to randomly attack me I will feel perfectly free to phrase your motives in whatever manner I wish.

If you do not like it, correct your behavior.
If you will not, you will have to deal with me not caring about your complaints.

Feel free to bold, italicize, quote, and/or supersize that to your heart's content, if it will aid your comprehension, retention, and adaptation or acceptance.


Let's keep in mind that it isn't the President that decides what the taxes are. It's the Congress. The President just recommends what he wants. If the polls are to believed, Congress is about to see it's first Democrat "super-majority" since FDR's time. That not only means they can stop a Republican filibuster, but most likely also override a Presidential Veto.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Aristodeimos wrote:
Let's keep in mind that it isn't the President that decides what the taxes are. It's the Congress. The President just recommends what he wants. If the polls are to believed, Congress is about to see it's first Democrat "super-majority" since FDR's time. That not only means they can stop a Republican filibuster, but most likely also override a Presidential Veto.

It takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster, due some obscure internal procedure rules. The democrats MIGHT get that, but honestly it isn't very likely.

It takes 67 votes (2/3s) to override a veto. The democrats will not get that.

So, assuming a 60-member majority (Since it doesn't matter much between 51 and 59, other than being slightly less worried about Lieberman), and a Obama presidency, the democratic party could pass pretty much anything they wanted, since an opposing filibuster wouldn't stop it. (I hate filibusters, by the way. By essentially allowing a veto by any 41+ senators, it's a great way to insure that NOTHING gets done, regardless of who is in charge. Even with people I don't agree with in charge, I'd rather they pass and prove how bad the ideas are.)

With a McCain presidency, everything would be subject to veto, which the democrats would not be able to override without republican support. Nothing will be able pass, except items either a) Not objectionable to either party or McCain or b) Laden with enough pork for red states to flip some republican votes in overriding the veto.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Heathansson wrote:
Tarren Dei wrote:
Heathansson wrote:


I know, but he's not running for anything.
I think it's sad that the media seems more concerned about smearing him than examining Obama's response to the man. Obama's running for POTUS, guys.
What was Obama's resonse? I honestly only heard of this guy today.

Joe the Plumber, unedited

Okay. Watched it. No big deal.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Nameless wrote:

Ross already said what I wanted to say, but I also wanted to point out that these kinds of platforms are the basis of democracy: focus on the majority. At the end of the day, the candidates are trying to get the most votes possible, so by promising to help 95% of the people to the detriment of that 5%, a candidate will most likely win more votes than he'll lose. Sure, that 5% might be unhappy when that candidate gets elected, but that's how democracy works; not everyone can have exactly what they want.

As for the proposal, if it affected me, I'd be fine with it. If I were making more than $250k (and an American citizen), I would have no problem at all paying an extra 3% in taxes to help out others and fund government social programs. I'd be all for something like that passing in my country, in fact.

The problem with that is it assumes people see themselves in the future as making less than $250,000. Many of the people who argue against higher taxes on the top 5% or whatever are optimistic in predicting their future incomes.

Liberty's Edge

Ornitorinco wrote:
Oh...and guess who else makes more than $250K? Paizo!!!

Dude, nobody and I mean nobody in the RPG industry is pulling down $250k in personal income. It's one of the worst paying, least profitable industries out there, and the people involved in it do it mostly out of love.

Even at WOTC, nobody is making that kind of money. Maybe the guys at the very top in Hasbro are pulling down that sort of bread, but it ain't happening anywhere in the gaming industry.

Liberty's Edge

Tarren Dei wrote:
The problem with that is it assumes people see themselves in the future as making less than $250,000. Many of the people who argue against higher taxes on the top 5% or whatever are completely delusional in predicting their future incomes.

Fixed it for you.


Samuel Weiss wrote:


I do not care who you are replying to when you post something like that, and despite your belief, it in no way insulates you from a response, or excuses or justifies the post.

Now perhaps you have managed to convince yourself that the first point was not somehow an utterly gratuitous personal attack, particularly when I had not bothered to address anything at all to you, directly or indirectly, but for most people that is all that will ever qualify as.
So yet again:

Cool. I'll make sure that in the future I don't comment in any way on how you treat people here on the boards unless you've addressed me first.

Sovereign Court

I know that if I were earning $250,000 (which is about £130,000 in real money), I'd happily pay more taxes.

I mean, that kinda money is dream land for me. Are there many people in America close to getting $250,000 a year, or something?

Sovereign Court

Tarren Dei wrote:
The problem with that is it assumes people see themselves in the future as making less than $250,000. Many of the people who argue against higher taxes on the top 5% or whatever are optimistic in predicting their future incomes.

This is true, but do you think more than half the American population believe they'll one day have a $250k salary? That's a lot of money, I can't fathom myself ever making that much money. And if it became known that a lot of people did expect to make over $250k per year, you could just raise it $500k, or $750k.

The point of this proposition seems to me to tax the rich as they have a lot of money, and a 3% tax on someone who makes a million dollar salary is a significant amount of money for the government, $30 000 in this case. It's worth way more than a 3% tax on someone making $30k per year ($900).

Of course, there are way more people making less than $250k, and the people making more than $250k generally have accountants to make sure they pay the least possible in taxes. Now I wonder what pays more: taxing the poor or taxing the rich? I would guess that in the States, taxing the rich would be worth more, but obviously, I have no data to back that up. It's an interesting question, though.

Liberty's Edge

Tarren Dei wrote:
Heathansson wrote:
Tarren Dei wrote:
Heathansson wrote:


I know, but he's not running for anything.
I think it's sad that the media seems more concerned about smearing him than examining Obama's response to the man. Obama's running for POTUS, guys.
What was Obama's resonse? I honestly only heard of this guy today.

Joe the Plumber, unedited

Okay. Watched it. No big deal.

Big enough that he's getting

a)his taxes and
b)his licensure status

looked into.

Sovereign Court

Heathansson wrote:

Big enough that he's getting

a)his taxes and
b)his licensure status

looked into.

I still don't get it, and at this point, I don't think I'm going to. Who cares about this guy's personal life? He asked a tough question, and he received an answer, it's cool.

The media needs a time out.

Liberty's Edge

The $250,000 is what you call a "campaign promise." If you think you're safe because you make less than that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I wanna sell you.

I'll look it up, but Clinton promised the same thing pretty much, and when he went back on it, he blamed the media for warping his words around or some drivel. It's business as usual.
You can't take any of these people at their word. They're politicians. They lie, and wheedle. It's what they do.
Is Obama going to.....lower my taxes? Hell no.
He's going to raise them. Anything else he says is a lie.
Of course, I have no proof; everybody tell me to get the tinfoil hat on until it happens. Then, I'd say, "nyah nyah, tolja so," but I won't be in the mood, because my taxes will be being raised.
So, Obama will have four years to blame all his b#~~#$$+ on Bush.
Then people will be fed up, say 4 years is plenty of time, it's all your fault now, and it'll be President Palin, or whoever is waiting in the wings.

451 to 472 of 472 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Sara Palin says Obama associates with Terrorists All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.