| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a lot more work to do.
Did you make him CN to denote his lack of sanity?
Out of my depression regarding the South Carolina disaster, I've created this character with all due consideration and gratefulness to the Good Doctor.
Ronald Paolus
Male Human Champion of Freedom* 4 / Oracle of Ancestry (Enlightened Philosopher) 4
Medium humanoid (human)
Init -1, Senses Perception +9, deafened
DEFENSES
AC 17 (19), touch 13, flat-footed 10 (+1 dodge vs melee, +4 armor, +3 Dex, +2 shield when called)
hp 60 (4d10+4d8+8+4 favored)
Fort +5, Ref +5, Will +12 (+2 vs enchantment spells)
Special Defenses defensive move, defensive stance, mobility
+1 dodge AC vs melee attacks
+4 dodge AC vs ranged attacks when moving
+4 dodge AC vs movement based attacks of opportunity.
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft.
Melee mwk short sword +10 (1d6+2, crit. 19-20/x2)
Full Attack mwk short sword +10/+5 (1d6+2, crit. 19-20/x2)
Special Attacks call upon the power, freedom's strength
+1 attack and damage when fighting to free someone from imprisonment, enslavement, or tyranny
Oracle Spells Known (CL 4th)
2nd (4/day) - ancestral communion, owl's wisdom
1st (7/day) - comprehend languages, detect the faithful, fairness, unseen servant
0 - detect magic, guidance, light, mending, purify food and water, stabilize
STATISTICS
Str 14, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 8 (12), Wis 18, Cha 14
Base Atk +7/+2, CMB +9, CMD 22
Feats Defensive Move, Defensive Stance, Eidetic Memory, Focused Healing, Mobility, Modify Combat Style
Skills Appraise +6, Diplomacy +8, Heal +9, Knowledge (History) +6, Knowledge (Nobility) +6, Perception +15, Profession (medicine) +15, Sense Motive +15; Racial Modifiers Profession (medicine) +4; Item Modifiers Perception and Sense Motive both increased to 8 ranks, Appraise +2, Knowledges +2.
Languages Common
Gear masterwork armored coat, masterwork short...
So, apparently, Rand Paul has been detained by TSA at the Nashville airport. Thank God, we can all feel safer now. /sarcasm
Here you go, Bitter Thorn... Filling this in as we go along.
Cool, thanks!
And to the surprise of absolutely nobody White House backs TSA in Paul stand-off.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
May I ask specifically what is missing from his sanity?
He's running for President.
No sane man would. :)
|
That's because the TSA was following procedure. Do you expect the White House to say either "Oh no, we just noticed, screening airline passengers is unConstitutional, we'll stop" or "He's a Senator, the normal rules only apply to the unwashed masses."
Rand Paul was not detained, as many people have been in the same circumstances. Something came up in the scan and he refused a pat down and was escorted out of the secure area.
What do you think should have been done?
I don't like the TSA procedures any more than anyone else, but should we really give Rand Paul an exemption, just because he's Rand Paul?
It is illegal to detain a Senator when he or she is fulfilling Senatorial obligations.
Yes, Senators should be exempt from any illegal searches and seizures, as should everyone else.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just a corretion Jeff, Senator Paul *is* claiming he was detained. Heard an interview with him last night and he's saying after the detector went off he was taken to the search cubicles while the TSA were deciding what to do. He tried to come out to figure out what was going on and was told to get back inside. At that point the TSA came in and said he'd need to do the full pat down, he refused and was escorted out.
But he was detained while they decided what to do... according to him anyway. I haven't heard the TSA's side of the story on this.
And a Senator can't try to board a plane without a ticket and claim it's unconstitutional. This had been brought up years ago (I can't remember by who) and since he's still very able to drive to the Senate to do his business, it's not unconstitutional. Holding him as he's trying to get there, however, is.
Not arguing right or wrong; just pointing out.
Agreed. I would like to hear more from the TSA's point of view.
I think they are too busy groping small children.
I know this was supposed to be a joke, but it's not helping.
I agree that TSA is not enhancing security in any meaningful way, and should probably be scaled back/dismantled. I strongly disagree that invoking "protect our children!" -- even in jest -- is the right way to do that.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I present to you:
Fair point, Kirth.
Deleted.
I present to you:
:)
I saw an article in a magizine titled, "Should robots handle airport security" and simply thought, "That is a fantastic idea..."
Robots can then grope people...
-Tundra
Would delete your reply, please?
I just had the same thought, but unfortunately there's no "delete" option for it any more. :(
Whoops. Well we tried.
The lesson for me is something about an ounce of prevention.....
So, is RP floundering now or just no longer getting coverage?
|
|
The media is ignoring him in an effort to make people think he's not doing well. At the Florida debates, the crowd was overwhelmingly pro-Ron Paul. As one person put it, most of the signs were Ron Paul, seven for Santorum, two for Gingrich, and a few Romney supporters.
It's also important to remember that pollwise, Ron Paul has close to 42% of the minority vote, so that might go strongly in his favor in Florida.
He may be "floundering" right now, but when we get to the later states where Gingrich and Santorum are not on the ballots, we'll see who is stronger.
The vote that might hurt him is the Seniors. Most of them don't understand his positions on Social Security. They only hear that he wants to get rid of it, not that he wants to phase it out. Case in point, my Grandmother. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Get it out of the hands of government, and back in the private sector, where it can be better managed, not mishandled as it has been, and I can see more clearly how much I have in my retirement savings account.
That's exactly what my parents said, almost word for word! So they put the bulk of their retirement savings into private stocks which they carefully managed. Then Enron crashed, and with it a lot of companies which, on paper, were unrelated but which were actually dependent on that whole house of cards, and when it came time to retire -- all they had left was Social Security.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Social Security is the world's biggest Ponzi scheme.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Social Security is the world's biggest Ponzi scheme.
Well, the world's third-biggest, after the stock market and the banks...
Technically, its not a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes are illegal and voluntary. Social Security is neither.
Edit: Dont get me wrong, Im not over critical of the idea of Social Security. I dont like the way its funded (i.e. exactly like a Ponzi Scheme), and I wish someone smarter than me could come up with a better and voluntary social safety net. I would like to see Social Security ended....when there is no need for it any longer.
That's because the TSA was following procedure. Do you expect the White House to say either "Oh no, we just noticed, screening airline passengers is unConstitutional, we'll stop"
Did I expect it? No, I did not. That's why I wrote "To the surprise of absolutely nobody,...) What should be done about it? Vote someone in who says this kind of stuff but without lying.
That's exactly what my parents said, almost word for word! So they put the bulk of their retirement savings into private stocks which they carefully managed. Then Enron crashed, and with it a lot of companies which, on paper, were unrelated but which were actually dependent on that whole house of cards, and when it came time to retire -- all they had left was Social Security.
Not to groove on your parents' misfortune, but I remember hearing an anecdote of some famous financial dude in the 20s who took all of his money out of the stock market after getting a tip from a shoe-shine man. He later said something along the lines that he knew it was time to get out of the market because all of the poor and working people were putting their money in.
The only reliable I know of to retire is to a) be rich; or b) surround yourself with children and treat them so well that they'll take care of you in your dotage.
Speaking of retirement...how goes the new job?
SS has the distinction of being the one entitlement program that actually is an entitlement. Older Americans have paid in all their lives, are entitled to it, and will most likely get dick for it.
If they are angry at the prospect of never seeing that cash, I can understand it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Social Security is the world's biggest Ponzi scheme.Well, the world's third-biggest, after the stock market and the banks...
Or insurance. Or, well heck, the entirety of our capitalist economic system. Being predicated on geometric growth isn't a far cry from being described as "pyramid-like" if you get my drift.
This, however, isn't a very good argument for Social Security's continued existence as much as it is an argument for the dismantling of those other systems/schemes.
Why don't we just flip all the money in and going into SS into a universal healthcare system? Let's be honest, the majority of the pittance that SS checks afford the elderly is going towards healthcare anyway.
I'm gonna put this article right here.
Disclaimer: I don't condemn or condone the article. Just happened to show up in my feed this afternoon. But it is an attention grabber. Potential NSFW due to language.
I agree. Mostly.
The only way they (and we) will get dick for it is if we let the Republicans kill it. There is no fiscal reason it should go away.
How is it the only one though? Medicare works on the same basis. We pay into it all our lives and should receive the benefits.
I tend to lump the two together.
I agree. Mostly.
The only way they (and we) will get dick for it is if we let the Republicans kill it. There is no fiscal reason it should go away.
How is it the only one though? Medicare works on the same basis. We pay into it all our lives and should receive the benefits.
Obviously if someone thinks the government is doing a great job and should tax and spend more then Ron Paul isn't your guy.
If someone wants more global nation building and military adventurism and the spending that goes with it then Ron Paul isn't your guy.
If someone thinks we currently have too much freedom and privacy and we need to give the government more power to "protect us" then Ron Paul isn't your guy.
I'm not ascribing all of these positions to you, but there are some fundamental and irreconcilable policy differences that are only going to be resolved by force.
Currently that force is directed at the minority who doesn't want to comply with laws they see as unjust or unconstitutional. Governments don't exist without the use of force, and I accept that some level of government and force is a necessary evil. I am concerned that the government's constantly expanding use of force is going to have serious blow back domestically as well as globally. As a nation we have increasingly radically opposed ideas of the role of government. Government grows in cost and power and it takes more and more in terms of property and freedom. More and more people seem to hold our laws and institutions in contempt for various reasons, and it seems like it's only a matter of time until non compliance turns into violent resistance.
I fear we are approaching the point where this prediction comes true.
"All politics are now just a dress rehearsal for the next civil war."
I support Ron Paul because he is the only candidate that I see who is serious about restraining the power of the state. I want far less government, and Paul is the only major candidate whose position is any where near mine.
I hope we can find a way to order our politics and our finances in a sustainable way before we experience a massive financial implosion and the violence that will surely come with it. I'm not very optimistic though.
How is it the only one though? Medicare works on the same basis. We pay into it all our lives and should receive the benefits.
Except thats NOT how it works.
You simply pay the government a portion of your wages, and it does whatever the heck it wants with them. Its nothing more than a regressive tax on salaried employees. You pay the tax. The government puts it into the general fund, and then spends it however it wants. "your" money isn't anywhere. Its not being saved, its not accruing interest, its not even directly going to grandma
Why can't it be voluntary? Why can I never opt out?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The short answer? Because then everyone opts out, then shows up at the hospital anyway, and doctors have to treat them because of the Hippocratic oath, and don't get paid, and soon there are no more doctors because it has become charity work.
Hospital needs an MRI machine. No insurance: first person who needs it pays for the whole thing so they can get one (impossible, unless he's Mitt Romney). Everyone insured: cost split among all covered people in district. Sometimes what's impossible to do alone is easy to do if everyone pitches in. But it's impossible to get most people to pitch in unless you force them to do so. Sad but true.
Now, there are good ways and bad ways of doing that, no argument. The U.S. for-profit insurance model has some good points, but was fundamentally broken. England's public-care model is arguably worse. Germany and France, however, seem to have good success with government collection and private care.
Sure, on some level it's all just accounting fiction, but on that level you don't actually have any money in the bank. The bank just takes your money and lends it to other people.
But the bank has a legal responsibility to give me the money back if i ask for it, when i ask for it.
The government has NO legal requirement to give me back my social security money.. EVER. It is a seperate taxing program and a seperate spending program. They can keep the taxing program and end the spending program if they want.
There's no reason this couldn't be funded out of the general pool. Its that wage earners have crappy lobbyists.
The short answer? Because then everyone opts out, then shows up at the hospital anyway, and doctors have to treat them because of the Hippocratic oath, and don't get paid, and soon there are no more doctors because it has become charity work.
Hospital needs an MRI machine. No insurance: first person who needs it pays for the whole thing so they can get one (impossible, unless he's Mitt Romney). Everyone insured: cost split among all covered people in district. Sometimes what's impossible to do alone is easy to do if everyone pitches in. But it's impossible to get most people to pitch in unless you force them to do so. Sad but true.
Now, there are good ways and bad ways of doing that, no argument. The U.S. for-profit insurance model has some good points, but was fundamentally broken. England's public-care model is arguably worse. Germany and France, however, seem to have good success with government collection and private care.
I was talking about social security, but I suppose the reply is applicable in some ways.
I don't begrudge my Dad a penny of his social security; he has paid into the program since its inception, but I'm probably getting screwed, and my daughter and grandkids surely will get boned by the current system.
If by some odd chance I live long enough to collect why should my grandkinds be forced to pay into what I believe is a failed and corrupt system to support me?
This seems fundamentally unjust to me.
The only way to avoid the current system is to break the law with all of the attendant consequences.
In theory the nation uses force to promote the greater good because the majority agrees that this is OK. I find this argument to be a problem because it can be used to justify anything from the war on drugs or terror to virtually any social program. At some point the argument "The majority says so." is not adequate. As a nation we have huge disagreements about where that point is. I am at one extreme that holds that the only valid reason for the state to use force is in response to the initiation of violence against a person or their property. Others believe it is OK to threaten people with force for their own good for health care, retirement, and drugs. It seems like something is going to break badly at some point, and it's going to be very ugly.
In theory the nation uses force to promote the greater good because the majority agrees that this is OK. I find this argument to be a problem because it can be used to justify anything from the war on drugs or terror to virtually any social program.
Yeah, but that's a part and parcel of every government or social group ever -- not just the U.S. Fed, but all the way back to Oog the Cave Man's clan of 3 sycophants and Ug the dissenter. If you abolish large governments, people tend to immediately self-organize into smaller clans which then try to exterminate each other. These are all problems with human nature, not specifically with government.