3,623 Forum Posts by "Ravariel"
At 1/16/12 05:46 PM, Proteas wrote: You think the Supreme Court won't split hairs or nitpick semantics on the issue if this gets mentioned?
Oh I certainly expect them to. But as someone who is not a Supreme Court Judge, or a constitutional scholar, or even a law student, I have no way to determine if the minor difference between the two will have any effect on whatever hypothetical ruling they may or may not make. Neither do you. All we have is speculation. Now, we've seen precedent in each direction for mandates. But without specific knowledge of the minutiae of legal precedent, semantics, or nits to be picked, there's not much more any of us can really say on that specific difference.
At 1/16/12 03:05 PM, adrshepard wrote: You don't understand. What Al-Qaida did and continues to do is unforgivable. There can't be any peace. There shouldn't be any peace. The group should remain our enemy until they surrender or are eliminated. Anything less gives legitimacy to what they've done and violates the most basic concepts of justice.
Only once they are gone should the US think about what their motivations were and decide if it's worthwhile to alter national policy in any way.
I think it's amusing that you think we can actually hunt them into extinction, as though they were a game animal. Your opinion is that we should destroy with great prejudice from now until the end of time, likely many thousands, if not millions, of people, because they a bunch of people in the same organization killed 3000 people who live in the same general geographical area as you 10+ years ago, is that right?
How's that working out for you so far? How many people who disagree with your country's philosophy will you have to slaughter before your lust for revenge is satisfied? How many innocent civilians have to die in collateral damage? Shall we just keep killing for all time? Because that's not going to make the people in the countries we operate in like up any better, or slow down recruiting for these organizations any.
This position is patently terrible. It is childish and accomplishes nothing but more strife. The proportional response has been done. We have found revenge. Now we need to find a way to stop the killing. That only happens by talking. We talked to the Nazis (believe it or not). We talked to Japan (and rebuilt their goddamn country). We talked to the USSR. We talk to Cuba and Venezuela and Iran. That's how this shit fucking works. If you just want to drop bombs on everyone who doesn't agree with you, then pretty soon, you're going to be the only one left.
It's retarded. You should know better. Luckily some in government do know better.
At 1/14/12 10:26 AM, marchohare wrote: It isn't a conspiracy. It's business as usual, and it has been since 1980 at the latest. The corporate press tells voters who's legitimate and who isn't, a majority predictably salivates like Pavlov's dogs, and the pack is quickly narrowed down to a choice between two sold-out whores.
You deny with one breath, then reaffirm with the next. Potayto, potahto. Take your pick.
That's how it's going to be. Happy?
I don't disagree. I just don't see the grand conspiracy ("status-quo," media control, whatever) making the whole thing a foregone conclusion. 3 years ago we had two decidedly unconventional frontrunners (even if one, the probative frontrunner, was of previously presidential lineage). If the Status quo was to be upheld, then Biden likely should have been the nominee. That said, Dems and Reps do tend to choose their candidates differently. Reps toy with unconventional picks in early states then gradually shift to the establishment candidate, while dems tend to have an ideological battle between their candidates.
Anyway, we are down to 5 in the primary now, as Huntsman, the lone voice of sanity in the clown car that has been the Rep primary, has decided to withdraw. He'll be making it official tomorrow, or rather, later today, I believe. Sad to see him go. He would have been the only one who could have gotten my vote on that side.
At 1/15/12 08:01 PM, Proteas wrote: So... there's a historical mandate that the congress can force businesses to buy healthcare, but not individuals.
Haven't you heard? Businesses are people now.
Item =/= service.
I'm not sure that hair being split changes anything, honestly.
At 1/15/12 07:53 PM, Korriken wrote:At 1/15/12 07:48 PM, CritcalOne wrote: i facepalm at the fact that people aren't realizing Obama couldn't get shit done because you ignorant fucks elected tea party people who do nothing but turn america into an anarchyor it might have something to do with his complete lack of leadership.
Or perhaps it's slightly more nuanced and includes both of those factors.
At 1/12/12 11:53 PM, marchohare wrote: One of us is wearing blinders all right, but it isn't me. If you'd followed ten percent of what I've written in the Political Forum, you'd know that I won't be surprised when Paul loses at all. He'll never win under any circumstances, because the elites don't want him, and what they want, they get.
Perhaps I spoke wrongly there, for you are right. You have never claimed that Paul would or could win an election. However, you do illustrate probably the better point that I was (badly) trying to make. You see any bad press or negative image issues that Paul has with the electorate as some fabrication of an elite conspiracy created to hold Paul back. That, without the active elite media campaign against him, he would be a shoe-in.
As someone who, believe it or not, tends toward the libertarian (though, admittedly not quite so far as Paul, Ayn Rand, or other NG posters like Smilez) I can tell you that there is a significant image (and charisma) issue with Paul that no elite media conspiracy could create. That is what you don't see because you have bought into his message. He comes across as a crazy old man who wants America to abandon the world and live like a hermit in the woods, and make sure no one can tell anyone else what to do. That's going to be a problem for someone trying to get elected.
His electoral problems are not a manufactured strategy by any political elite.
...let me rephrase that. Whatever struggles he may have going against the status quo are MAGNIFIED by his charisma and image issues which, while not manufactured by those interested in keeping power, certainly help them in their quest to back their own preferred candidates.
Also, if there's some elite conspiracy against RP, and they are as powerful as you imply, then he would never get to a national presidential campaign, nevermind running a solid(ish) second place after the first two states.
At 1/11/12 09:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 1/11/12 06:50 PM, Warforger wrote: swear words don't offend anyone who isn't a moron.Nay, it is those who never find the usage of a swear offensive to be the morons...
Yes, there is a bit of a difference between "Let's fuck." and "Fuck you." One is offensive, the other, not so much. I'll let you figure out which is which.
At 1/10/12 04:17 PM, Proteas wrote:To answer your question, the two curse words uttered were (according to the newscaster the other night) the "b" word and the "a" word.
Really? Not even words you can't say on prime time broadcast television?
Eh, regardless of who is in the "right," by making this a national headline, the school loses and looks like an overreacting mess. Steve's got it right, that would have been the appropriate punishment, and there would be nothing they could take to the media. It's like school administrators forget that the best way to deal with smart-assedness is with smart-assedness.
At 1/10/12 03:40 AM, marchohare wrote: Typical black & white thinking: if I don't believe R.P. is a heartless monster, I must be a "true believer," eh? That kind of thinking is the mark of a weak mind, Ravariel.
No, to a true believer, no possible criticism is ever legitimate. Paul's perception issues must all be manufactured, and there is no way that any comments of his that cast him in a bad light could be anything but out of context.
So is citing Saturday Night Live as an indicator of his political positions. You might as well get your information from something like this.
The fact that he got parodied by SNL is proof that this perception has reached the greater social consciousness. And I did post the actual quote (after you refused to watch the first one), so that accusation is kinda disingenuous.
Is Paul better than Romney? Yeah, probably. However, he has very real perception issues. Not only his apparent heartlessness, but also in foreign policy, his isolationism is either unworkable or would have disastrous consequences in many areas of the world. These issues are not manufactured, they are created by HIS OWN WORDS. Sure, you "don't see it." I wouldn't expect you to, because you have a "different" perspective, one that is biased in favor of Paul. And if you decide to continue to have blinders on about them, then you'll be forever surprised at him not getting elected.
At 1/9/12 03:42 PM, marchohare wrote:At 1/9/12 11:55 AM, Ravariel wrote: that was an SNL parody of an actual debate, but it's not based on nothing....Meaningless.
The actual debate, and while he never says the actual words...
To the true believer, of course.
At 1/8/12 09:40 PM, marchohare wrote:At 1/8/12 08:29 PM, Ravariel wrote: When he goes on national television and says that the uninsured deserve to die, regardless of it's utilitarian logic, that's not something people, no matter how staunchly right-wing, want to hear.Please show me where he said that.
I already did. Granted, that was an SNL parody of an actual debate, but it's not based on nothing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irx_QXsJi ao
The actual debate, and while he never says the actual words, he does an awfully quick stump spin on the issue when he's pressed, gives a "churches friends and neighbors" non-answer and then says that "alternative medicine" should be available as well.
You know what they call "alternative medicine" that works?
Medicine.
At 1/8/12 06:42 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: At any rate, it' stuff like *this*, that gives the paul supporters just cause for outrage at the media.
Oh, I'm not arguing that Paul and his supporters don't have a legitimate beef with the media. It took months for them to even acknowledge that he was in the race or had any involvement in the early debates. Even the Daily Show had a bit on that.
However, his general appearance of kookery is not all manufactured. When he goes on national television and says that the uninsured deserve to die, regardless of it's utilitarian logic, that's not something people, no matter how staunchly right-wing, want to hear.
At 12/30/11 04:49 AM, marchohare wrote:At 12/30/11 12:02 AM, Ravariel wrote: Maybe this SNL skit from a while back might clue you in.Didn't watch it. Don't care. We know the mainstream media treats him like a Bigfoot sighting. So what? As I said, I've been paying attention to what he actually said since '88.
Ffs, dude. You wanted to know why he "comes across" as a kook, and I just gave you exactly that and you basically tell me and the entire media to go fuck ourselves? Whatever. I realize now that you're a true believer, so I guess I'll leave you to sip your kool-aid and whinge about why noone pays attention to the old kook.
At 1/7/12 02:34 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:I remember opening threads & seeing " Found Another One"Yeah, it was a fine moment, too bad it's outlawed now.
good times indeed ~;)
What can you do?
Awww, it is!? I was wondering why I hadn't seen that in a while.
At 1/4/12 09:51 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Santorum has his own skeletons to answer for. He wasn't targeted before, he will be now.
True. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Santorum's a threat to win the nomination. Actually at this point the only true threat is Gingrich. Romney and Gingrich are going to be tough pills to swallow for the republican base (and Gingrich will have even more issues with moderates and disenfranchised Dems than Romney). If Santorum can't keep his momentum and win a significant percentage of New Hampshire and South Carolina, I would expect him to fold and back Gingrich, hoping to pull Florida towards him. Then we'll have our horserace.
Don't get me wrong, either. I would love (LOVE!) to see a Paul nomination. I don't think he could win, but the race would be fanTAStic!
Then again, the stars could align and we could get the darkest of all dark horses: a sane republican with executive experience and foreign policy chops...
...naaah, never happen.
At 1/4/12 01:22 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: Seems OWS is not entirely dead: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/02/hu ndreds-of-occupy-protesters-make-a-show-
at-rose-parade/
They made a human float shaped like an octopus as a form of protest.
Goddammit, the Rose Bowl is FOOTBALL, not HOCKEY. Get it right, OWS!
Well, it looks like Romney pulled it out by a short-and-curly. 8 votes. Eight. That's how much he won by. Not technically official yet, but it also looks like Perry is stepping out. Gingrich is still going strong even after coming in a distant 4th behind Santorum and Paul.
Next up is New Hampshire where Romney has a substantial lead in the polls and has for some time, but it looks like Gingrich is happy to split the bottom half of the ticket in order to guarantee a Romney win. South Carolina and Florida right now are up in the air. If Gingrich or Santorum can pull in some good numbers in NH, then either one could gain some momentum heading into those two, much more important numbers-wise, States.
One way or another, it looks like this nomination process will be just as long and insane as the Obama/Clinton one.
At 12/26/11 03:07 PM, marchohare wrote:At 12/26/11 02:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I was saying the man is weird. Ron Paul comes off as a crazy old cook.I assume you mean "kook." I just don't see it.
Maybe this SNL skit from a while back might clue you in.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/282324/saturda y-night-live-cold-opening-gop-debate
At 12/21/11 06:26 PM, TheMason wrote: Right now the "rich" are the ones funding everything.
* 40% of taxes are paid by the top 2% of earners.
Considering the top 1% of earners actually earns more than 25% of the entire nation's income, the top .1% make more than the bottom 120 million people combined (and from 2001-2007 their yearly income doubled while the rest of the country's incomes grew less than 2% per year), and that their real tax rates are actually lower than many of the people in lower tax brackets, that number should actually be higher.
* The lower 47% of Americans pay zero tax.
Zero Federal Taxes. Eventually (remember, the government gets to hold on to their money for the year until refund day). They also make less than 33k a year. That's barely enough to provide for a family of 4. And if both parents work, that means that they're making about 17k per year a piece. That's basically McDonald's wages. Their money is better spent on living and maybe savings in order to grow into a tax bracket that can better afford to pay taxes.
In essence we already have massive wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor. Afterall, outside of Social Security or Medicare...the rich who foot the bill don't get to see a return in social benefits.
'Scuse me? I guess the rich just fly everywhere and don't need roads, or other infrastructure, or a military. This argument that for some reason social safety nets are the only goddamn thing that taxes pay for is really disingenuous.
So the more you engage in class warfare against the "rich"...the more you're screwing the "little guy".
Bullshit. The top 1% can afford to pay more taxes. The bottom 50% cannot. The bottom 50% do not (in general) save. Because they can't. They spend nearly 100% of their earnings on living day to day. The top 1% couldn't spend their money if they wanted to. They do not use it to "create jobs" as everyone on the right loves to say, otherwise they already would be. Creating jobs creates wealth for them and the people they employ which in turn generates more wealth for the wealthy. If they were going to create jobs, they would be. Taxes have nothing to do with that. Nevermind their ability to use that money to avoid many of the taxes they SHOULD already be paying. Adding a new tax bracket for those making over $1mil/yr is not going to suddenly make job creation dry up. It's already bone goddamn dry, it's not going anywhere. However, the added government revenue can ease those very tensions you've been talking about concerning government bonds and other investments, which WILL stimulate job growth. The top 1% will not suddenly find themselves unable to hire people or make investments because they are paying a few thousand more in taxes. They may have to wait a few months to buy that 200,000 sq.ft. house on the Riviera... and we'll all wail in mourning at their great misfortune.
For what it's worth, I won't be voting for any incumbent in 2012 (barring possibly Obama, depending on his opponent). I don't get to vote for every rep/senator, but if I could, then yes, I would vote against every one of them.
Congratulations to all the winners. As one who volunteered to help judge late in the game, if anyone would like some specific feedback on their piece, feel free to PM me and I'll be happy to oblige.
At 12/20/11 09:43 PM, animehater wrote: Ladies and gentlemen, it appears that Presidential candidate Jon Huntsman has had an account here this entire time! How shocking!
Shh! You'll blow my cover, dammit!
At 12/19/11 04:23 PM, TheMason wrote: Condi Rice
What about the Republican's Veep? I've heard about Condi Rice, which I think would be an inspired choice. You've got a black female who is accomplished in government, academia and the arts. Furthermore, she adds much needed foreign policy experience/knowledge to a field that is focused solely on Domestic issues.
She would be an excellent pick... for a sane candidate. If someone other than Romney gets the nom, I think she'd be an excellent choice (though I expect a Gingrich nomination would find Huntsman a better fit), and if Romney gets it, he might be looking for a VP that appeals to the base more than to independents such as Huckabee, but she would still give the ticket the racial punch to counter Obama, and possibly force a VP ticket switch to Clinton, which, honestly, I think would be a disastrous move for Obama.
Finally...@ Camero...
I think Huntsman has no traction because he has very few bona fide conservative credentials. He's broken with the party on things like Global Warming and Gay Marriage and served as a high ranking Obama official. I don't think his Mormon faith has anything to do with his struggles in the polls.
You mean, a sane conservative who has executive experience, serious foreign policy chops, and will appeal to independents for just those reasons that the GOP might not love him?
Seriously, they're flipping insane not to run him.
Well, Jong Il has been ill (heh) for some time, so it's likely that they've had an "interim" goverment setup in place for a while now, so while Jong Un matures, his leadership role will as well. Until then, true leadership will likely be in the hands of the Military Junta. It'll be another 10 years before any significant change happens (if at all).
At 12/12/11 02:51 PM, SolInvictus wrote:At 12/10/11 07:01 AM, MsRukia wrote: The definition of what truth is relies evidently on the perception of an individual.is everyone in taking the same damn class that just about every thread has devolved into a relativist clusterfuck at the same time?
On the plus side, it's almost time for the new semester, so we should be getting another wave of marxists and nihilists in a few weeks.
yay?
At 12/8/11 11:11 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 12/8/11 10:33 AM, Ravariel wrote: How Huntsman isn't running away with this election I have no idea.Three letters:
L
D
S
Were Romney not similar, and were he losing to a slightly less-than-mainstream republican only, I might agree, but he's polling at Margin of Error right now, losing to Bachmann and Santorum as well as Gingrich, Romney and Paul. He should be making a bigger splash than he is.
Anyway, there's a new poll out that is rather telling in many ways, and must be slightly worrying for the republican establishment. In 3 of the 4 first primary states (excepting New Hampshire) Gingritch has a healthy double-digit lead over Romney. In most of those states Obama polls significantly higher than Gingritch (12 points in Florida, which has to scare the repubs), he also beats Gingrich nationally by nearly 7 points (the same margin by which he beat McCain). With the Iowa Caususes less than 3 weeks away, and the ebb of political interest that comes from the holidays, unless Gingrich makes a Perry-level flub Romney is going to find it hard to come back from 3 early primary state losses, and even so nationally Romney is behind Obama by 2 points... within the margin of error, but in no way is he anything close to guaranteed.
Speaking of games, I participated in a charity Warhammer 40k tournament this weekend. Came in 5th out of 20.
Was at the top table (as in seeded 2nd overall after the first two games) for my final game and then shit the bed so hard that my kids will smell it. Bloody embarrassing. But it was for a good cause (Toys for Tots) and I had fun so no complaints.
At 11/30/11 09:05 AM, Sahariel wrote: I need help developing the technology of the world, specifically how quantum computing, bio-mechanical augmentations, and robotics would shape the socio-political landscape of not only industrialized nations but the third world as well. Ideas for modern commercial technology, military technology, future forensics and science for use of criminal justice, weaponry, etc. Also, how to make it more prominent in the main plot. Considering having Nate have a daughter who, due to a motorcycle accident, had her arm amputated and then given augmentation, but no idea what role she would play in the story.
Take a gander at Ghost in the Shell, the movies and the TV show. They give a pretty good rundown of what might constitute new avenues of detection, crime, and political power made by augmentation. I would also bump your story back about 10 years to 2040-ish. Just before the singularity is supposed to hit.
Second, I am having trouble deciding how Nate and Meridiana meet. The original idea is that Nate sees Meridiana chased by a group of blind white-robed men (angels) who can sense her presence. Nate comes within ten feet and her presence is masked, rendering them completely blind and easily killed by her Astral Energy. Any other ideas for consideration would be lovely.
It's obvious that you want to ground a lot of this world in understandable, but advanced, technology. However, you also have this "Astral Energy" thing going throughout, via these angels and demons. That is going to be a difficult juxtaposition to pull off. I might suggest that these angels and demons might just be the people who have already reached the singularity and have simply co-opted the more advanced technology (which, via Clarke's 3rd Law, would be indistinguishable from magic) in order to create this mystical separation. Anyway, the question about how your characters meet should be answered by what purpose their meeting serves in the story. If you wish it to be a "destiny" thing, then a few unlikely coincidences will be fine, but the actual event could be anything. If you need it to be a "hero" moment for your main character, then saving her from one of these beings, and thus perhaps discovering the power of his amulet, might suffice. What their relationship eventually becomes and how it shapes the story should dictate how they meet, and vice-versa, to be honest.
Third, Nate and the rest of the Ion Children's powers. Originally considered ability to manipulate all electronics and electromagnetism which enables him to cancel out Astral Energy, a characteristic of Unsealed Ion Children. How he awakens his power is the acknowledgement of the existence of his power. Meridiana helps him awaken it but refuses to allow him to realize his full potential out of fear that he would kill her to free himself from the contract.
Fairly common trope of most MC/Supernatural fiction.
Finally, rules for Astral Energy as well as an explanation of how and why it can be cancelled by EMP. Angels are inorganic yet able to reproduce and Ion Children are required to be sealed out of fear of their powers (remember, all Ion Children have the possibility of controlling electromagnetism, but they are sealed at birth and the process is irreversible.)
Well, as long as you ground "Astral Energy" in technology, it could be as simple as how EM fields currently disrupt electronics.
PS: Would you read something like this? Just curious.
Certainly. However, you will need to choose between writing this as Science Fiction (See: Deus Ex: HR, Ghost in the Shell), or as Future Fantasy (eg. Star Wars). Basically, you can hand-wave all of the various powers of your protagonist and his adversaries with a basic "very advanced technology" explanation, and then go crazy with what they can actually do (see: the X-Men) or you can ground their abilities in actual (fictional) science. This is especially necessary if the actual augments and their effect on the social world your protagonist lives in is an important part of the story. If that's the case, you'll probably need to explain nearly ALL of the fantastical abilities, and how they came about. That puts limits on your potential abilities, but if the class clash that such technologies generally come with is important, then you might want to go in this direction. If you just want a superhero story set in a technological future, then abandon the detailed descriptions of new tech and how it works with a big hand-wave and go nuts.
Best of luck!
At 12/8/11 09:23 AM, TheMason wrote: I don't think so, the US is a Center-right country, so I think that Obama can easily be painted as firmly left instead of center or moderately left.
Well, that's what I mean about being able to control the message.
Thus I think someone who is further right (ie: Reagan in '80) could beat him.
Problem is, even Reagan '80 is to the left of the current Republican field (excepting Huntsman and the ever-squishy Romney) right now. Granted, candidates generally tack center once the general election comes, but this has been, by far, the furthest right that the republicans have gone in some time. How Huntsman isn't running away with this election I have no idea.
Well, it looks like Obama has begun his campaign in earnest, and it's a direction that, frankly, I'm surprised he's having the balls to take. He seems to be trying to take back the "liberal/progressive as epithet" and turn it on it's head, for once truly defending and espousing the benefits of a progressive system. He has also made a heavy base-rising stroke of international policy in a new policy direction regarding foreign aid.
This could be an absolute disaster if he can't control the message, but even a moderately left position will be far more appealing than a radical right position that the Republicans seem desperate to hold up. That said, if Gingrich can toe the line between bomb-thrower and oblivious blowhard, Obama is going to have a rough go of it even if the economy improves.
