Uh oh.

McCain casts Fireball!

NTY rolls 1d20. Just makes saving throw!

Phew. That was close.

Goldfarb compared the editors to a blogger "sitting at home in his mother's basement and ranting into the ether between games of Dungeons & Dragons."



Actually, most of us are playing World of Warcraft now. 4th edition is a fairly big disappointment to the old skool players. For my part, I've limited myself to running a Dark Heresy game and keeping our raid guild functional - we downed Teron Gorefiend last night. 4/9 black temple bosses down! Anyways, I don't see me going back to D&D for a long long time.

um...sorry, what was the question again?

Oh, and before the WoTC fanbois show up and start the whinefest - my problem with 4th edition isn't the rules changes, it has more to do with the storyline shift. I'm a writer (or at least pretend to be one from time to time) and story continuity is important to me. 4th edition not only arbitrarily advanced forgotten realms by about 100 years, but most - if not all - of their iconic characters died. And not just 'died', they basically all caught the 'magic flu' and died. All those smart, dedicated, tough as nails and well defined characters just turned tits up and died of the 'magic sneezes'.

*sigh*

I can see working a rules revision into the story line. that's fine. But at least make it believable within the context of the story as it's already written. otherwise you destroy the story. THAT is the unforgivable sin that 4th edition commmited in my eyes.

Has McCain's campaign just completely lost their farking minds?

Noted blogger Curt Schilling isn't going to like this. Guess he can join Paris Hilton and her family among the supporters thrown under the Low Road Express for the sake of cheap political points.

Weaver95: I can see working a rules revision into the story line. that's fine. But at least make it believable within the context of the story as it's already written. otherwise you destroy the story. THAT is the unforgivable sin that 4th edition commmited in my eyes.

Phew.

I thought I was going to look like the nerdy fanboy in this thread.

Musta rolled a 12 or better.

patrick767: Has McCain's campaign just completely lost their farking minds?

I've been asking that question now for the past month. it's almost like McCain isn't even trying to win the election.

Weaver95: it's almost like McCain isn't even trying to win the election.

This article explains it all: He is merely trying to win the GOP vote.
And until he can do that, he has fark-all chance of beating Obama.

Yes, whiny, emotional and quick to anger...that's what we need in a President!

Go cry in a corner, emo McCain.

Skleenar: Weaver95: it's almost like McCain isn't even trying to win the election.

This article explains it all: He is merely trying to win the GOP vote.
And until he can do that, he has fark-all chance of beating Obama.

The only way he's going to unify the Republicans is to publicly repudiate the policies of the Bush administration and purge the party of the fundies. Which he won't do. And until/unless he does that, he won't get the fiscal conservatives back in his corner.

Weaver95: The only way he's going to unify the Republicans is to publicly repudiate the policies of the Bush administration and purge the party of the fundies. Which he won't do. And until/unless he does that, he won't get the fiscal conservatives back in his corner.

Well, sure, that might unify the GOP, but it would be a much smaller GOP and therefore it just might be counterproductive.

If McCain is trying to throw the election he may be the only sensible Republican out there. Having a scapegoat like Obama for the last 8 years is far more important in the long run for the party, more responsibility is the last thing on earth they need.

Skleenar: Well, sure, that might unify the GOP, but it would be a much smaller GOP and therefore it just might be counterproductive.

Get rid of the fundies and go back to fiscal conservatism and you'll see people flock to the Republicans in droves. Dismantle the 'war on drugs' and the 'war on terror' and people will love you for it. Kick RIAA in the 'nads and people will love you for it.

Weaver95: Get rid of the fundies and go back to fiscal conservatism and you'll see people flock to the Republicans in droves. Dismantle the 'war on drugs' and the 'war on terror' and people will love you for it. Kick RIAA in the 'nads and people will love you for it.

Why don't you just rename the GOP the, I don't know, "Libertarian" party.

Skleenar: Well, sure, that might unify the GOP, but it would be a much smaller GOP and therefore it just might be counterproductive

We've clearly reached the point where the fundies drive more people away than they bring in.

Mordant: Having a scapegoat like Obama for the last 8 years is far more important in the long run for the party, more responsibility is the last thing on earth they need.

I would agree that the worst thing that has ever happened for the GOP was actually being in power long enough for people to see what their policies do to a nation.

Short of reforming along the lines of Weaver95's proposal, I think people have finally reached their limit of politics substituting for policy.

Skleenar: Weaver95: Get rid of the fundies and go back to fiscal conservatism and you'll see people flock to the Republicans in droves. Dismantle the 'war on drugs' and the 'war on terror' and people will love you for it. Kick RIAA in the 'nads and people will love you for it.

Why don't you just rename the GOP the, I don't know, "Libertarian" party.

I like the libertarians, but they couldn't agree on the time of day, let alone focus on a coherent foreign policy for more than 10 minutes at a time.

Skleenar: Why don't you just rename the GOP the, I don't know, "Libertarian" party

Why not. They already successfully hijacked libertarian rhetoric about "small government" and whatnot. It would be a huge improvement if they actually followed through on that talk.

After McCain goes down in flames, the GOP will move in one of two directions- the Huckabee-style revamping of big government "compassionate conservatism"- i.e. social conservatism and unabashed fiscal liberalism (as opposed to the current social conservatism and vehemently denied fiscal liberalism), or in a more libertarian/limited government/live-and-let-live direction to try and recapture all the people who actually believe in that stuff and have been leaving the GOP in droves. Which would you prefer?

Weaver95: I like the libertarians, but they couldn't agree on the time of day, let alone focus on a coherent foreign policy for more than 10 minutes at a time.

if they're like most of the people on the internet that identify themselves as libertarians, the answer to any question is always "free market".

Weaver95: I like the libertarians, but they couldn't agree on the time of day, let alone focus on a coherent foreign policy for more than 10 minutes at a time.

How about this: Why don't all the Republicans you describe as "good" Republicans just jump ship to the Libertarians en mass and leave the GOP to the fundies and the big-government conservatives.

You could swamp them with your numbers, and you could have your Scowcrofts take over their foreign policy.

Weaver95: I like the libertarians, but they couldn't agree on the time of day, let alone focus on a coherent foreign policy for more than 10 minutes at a time

That's more reflective of having a relatively small group of frustrated ideologues (the people who've been running the LP up until this election) rather than something inherent in libertarianism. Finally, the people willing to work to build a broad coalition and accept gradual change are in charge of the LP and trying to present that sort of image as the face of libertarianism. It's a big change, and it will take a couple of election cycles to see it fully played out, but the era of the LP spending all its (minute) resources every four years on an obscure third party activist who gets .4% of the vote is over.

Skleenar: Weaver95: I like the libertarians, but they couldn't agree on the time of day, let alone focus on a coherent foreign policy for more than 10 minutes at a time.

How about this: Why don't all the Republicans you describe as "good" Republicans just jump ship to the Libertarians en mass and leave the GOP to the fundies and the big-government conservatives.

You could swamp them with your numbers, and you could have your Scowcrofts take over their foreign policy.

that would also trigger a massive power struggle and they'd spend years tearing each other apart rather than focusing on moving forward.

I think the only solution is the most simple - every last one of the guys currently running the show in the RNC must go. No exceptions. thanks for the years of service, but it's time to retire.

Now.

Then maybe we can salvage something.

Weaver95: I've been asking that question now for the past month. it's almost like McCain isn't even trying to win the election.

And yet somehow the polling numbers are still close. It makes me wonder what Obama's doing wrong other than being black. The choice is clear, but somehow the McCain campaign's insanity is appealing to some.

Weaver95: that would also trigger a massive power struggle and they'd spend years tearing each other apart rather than focusing on moving forward.

That's more or less what's going on right now. The LP Reform Caucus isn't interventionist on foreign policy (rightfully so, in my opinion), but aside from that the scenario y'all are talking about is exactly what happened at the 2008 convention.

Weaver95: I think the only solution is the most simple - every last one of the guys currently running the show in the RNC must go. No exceptions. thanks for the years of service, but it's time to retire.

Now.

Then maybe we can salvage something

Good luck with that. The GOP might shift course into a more vaguely libertarian-ish direction, but you're not going to see a purge of the neocons.

Churchill2004: That's more reflective of having a relatively small group of frustrated ideologues (the people who've been running the LP up until this election) rather than something inherent in libertarianism. Finally, the people willing to work to build a broad coalition and accept gradual change are in charge of the LP and trying to present that sort of image as the face of libertarianism. It's a big change, and it will take a couple of election cycles to see it fully played out, but the era of the LP spending all its (minute) resources every four years on an obscure third party activist who gets .4% of the vote is over.

The only libertarian I know complained to me last week that Barr is a neocon and he'll never support him.

Churchill2004: Good luck with that. The GOP might shift course into a more vaguely libertarian-ish direction, but you're not going to see a purge of the neocons.

I think we NEED a purge of the neocons. we have to have it done in a very public place with high visibility. everyone needs to know they've been rejected and removed from authority.

I should point out- most of the infighting has been a one-way street. The Reformers have bent over backwards to try and satisfy the radicals, who for the most part just want to keep the LP a .4% radical niche and angrily denounce any one not equally radical as an authoritarian statist.

Even as a radical libertarian at heart myself, these people need to go. If they want their own little dogmatic political church, they should get out of the way of the people who actually want to effect some change in the real world.

Churchill2004: or in a more libertarian/limited government/live-and-let-live direction

There's a lot I like about the Libertarian philosophy.

I think, however, that the Randian pish-posh they try to pass off as 'serious economic thinking' is, in the end, less dangerous to the well being of the nation (and religion) than a religiously-inspired ideological social conservatism party.

Mostly because I think such economic policies tend to bow to the influence of realpolitik while world history has shown that religious fanaticism is a real threat to national well-being.

Weaver95: I think we NEED a purge of the neocons. we have to have it done in a very public place with high visibility. everyone needs to know they've been rejected and removed from authority.

I don't disagree, I just don't think it will happen.

Churchill2004: Weaver95: I think we NEED a purge of the neocons. we have to have it done in a very public place with high visibility. everyone needs to know they've been rejected and removed from authority.

I don't disagree, I just don't think it will happen.

Probably. But it's what has to occur if the Republicans are to save themselves.

patrick767: The only libertarian I know complained to me last week that Barr is a neocon and he'll never support him

Chances are he wouldn't support any one whose political views are anything less than a 98% for his own. Which is great for being all self-righteous, but lecturing at the unenlightened masses from your high horse makes for a poor election strategy.

Weaver95: Probably. But it's what has to occur if the Republicans are to save themselves.

I'd be more than happy to see the GOP collapse, frankly.

Churchill2004: Chances are he wouldn't support any one whose political views are anything less than a 98% for his own. Which is great for being all self-righteous, but lecturing at the unenlightened masses from your high horse makes for a poor election strategy.

No idea. I kind of wondered if his claim about Barr had any truth to it, but not enough to bother looking it up. All Barr is going to do is siphon some votes mostly from McCain. Hey.... I just found something to like about him.

Churchill2004: Weaver95: Probably. But it's what has to occur if the Republicans are to save themselves.

I'd be more than happy to see the GOP collapse, frankly.

At this point, I don't care which party collapses. The only way to break the deadlock on power and control both of them currently enjoy is for one of them to go 'poof'. The chaos of one party imploding would allow another group or two to get into power. I cannot see this as a bad thing.

patrick767: All Barr is going to do is siphon some votes mostly from McCain.

The majority of people who'll vote for him wouldn't have voted for Obama or McCain any way. Of those that would, they split slightly to McCain but not nearly as heavily as you'd think.

Churchill2004: Chances are he wouldn't support any one whose political views are anything less than a 98% for his own. Which is great for being all self-righteous, but lecturing at the unenlightened masses from your high horse makes for a poor election strategy.

Or he believes that what a man fought for for more than twenty years of his life means more about him than the values he claims to hold today.

/though he'd still be using the word neocon wrong.

Obdicut: Or he believes that what a man fought for for more than twenty years of his life means more about him than the values he claims to hold today

The vast majority of libertarians are ex-conservatives or ex-liberals. There's nothing really unusual about that.

Churchill2004: The vast majority of libertarians are ex-conservatives or ex-liberals. There's nothing really unusual about that.

Oh man, that's sad.

Barr was hardly just an average conservative or liberal. He was incredibly non-libertarian.

It was sad to see a man of your intelligence compromising his values to support Paul; it's even sadder to see you do it for Barr.

Obdicut: Barr was hardly just an average conservative or liberal. He was incredibly non-libertarian.

That's not really the point. Any one willing to repudiate authoritarian positions, even if they held and advocated them in the past, should be welcomed, not condemned.

And it's not like he just hopped ship to the LP yesterday. He's been working for libertarian causes for the past six years, including endorsing Badnarik in 2004.

Obdicut: It was sad to see a man of your intelligence compromising his values to support Paul; it's even sadder to see you do it for Barr.

It's not "compromising my principles", it's realizing that it's ok to work within a broader coalition that includes people I only agree with most of the time rather than 100% of the time. I can easily list a bunch of issues where I disagree with Barr and/or Paul. Both come out as positives on balance, though.

Besides, I'm not voting for Bob Barr to be the next President. That's not going to happen. I know it, and I'd be willing to bet Bob Barr knows it. I'm voting for the future of the LP as a broad coalition rather than a radical niche, which is only possible because of Barr and the people he brought with him into the party.

Churchill2004: That's not really the point. Any one willing to repudiate authoritarian positions, even if they held and advocated them in the past, should be welcomed, not condemned.

Yes-- as long as they can explain why they held them in the first place, and what motivated the transformation.


It's not "compromising my principles", it's realizing that it's ok to work within a broader coalition that includes people I only agree with most of the time rather than 100% of the time. I can easily list a bunch of issues where I disagree with Barr and/or Paul. Both come out as positives on balance, though.

You've somehow been convinced that federalism is in any way associated with libertarianism. I have no clue how this bizarre thought process got started; the only people who are really pushing it are social conservatives, and yet it somehow has made deep penetration into those who think of themselves as libertarians. It's kind of agonizing to see.

Obdicut: Yes-- as long as they can explain why they held them in the first place, and what motivated the transformation.

Which he has, repeatedly.

Obdicut: You've somehow been convinced that federalism is in any way associated with libertarianism

Decentralization of power is a libertarian ideal, and that's what Federalism is.

Churchill2004: Which he has, repeatedly.

No, he explained why he changed his mind, not why he took 20 years to do so.

Decentralization of power is a libertarian ideal, and that's what Federalism is.

No matter how may times you say this, it is not true. There is nothing about the area of jurisdiction of a government that makes it more or less libertarian. At all. Rhode island is not more libertarian than California.

Decentralized power can be more oppressive than centralized power: see South Dakota banning abortions, the Jim Crow laws in the south, etc.

To vote for your Obama, text VOTEA to 12345.
To vote for McCain, text VOTEB to 12345.

/soon
//soon

Obdicut: No, he explained why he changed his mind, not why he took 20 years to do so.

I honestly don't care that much about his internal motivations.

Obdicut: No matter how may times you say this, it is not true. There is nothing about the area of jurisdiction of a government that makes it more or less libertarian. At all. Rhode island is not more libertarian than California.

New Hampshire is more libertarian than California. In fact, a number of states are more libertarian than others, and there's no reason that couldn't be built upon.. Which allows for a comparison that would be lost with a one-size-fits-all policy imposed from Washington.

Obdicut: Decentralized power can be more oppressive than centralized power: see South Dakota banning abortions, the Jim Crow laws in the south, etc

Federalism allows for a wider variation of government policies, which can just as easily be in a more authoritarian rather than more libertarian direction. I don't deny that, nor do I advocate (like some do) lifting 14th Amendment restrictions on the states. However, at the end of the day it's a hell of a lot easier to change a state law than a Federal one, not to mention easier to escape the jurisdiction of the law.

And yes, decentralization of power is a libertarian ideal, because it means power divided and dispersed, which at the end of the day is less of a threat to liberty than having all power concentrated in the hands of a few men in DC.

Churchill2004: New Hampshire is more libertarian than California. In fact, a number of states are more libertarian than others, and there's no reason that couldn't be built upon.. Which allows for a comparison that would be lost with a one-size-fits-all policy imposed from Washington.

You missed the point entirely. Yes, if you create X entites, n of them will be more libertarian and X-n will be less libertarian. That is not in the least surprising, and it does not at all demonstration that federalism increases libertarianism. At all.

Federalism allows for a wider variation of government policies, which can just as easily be in a more authoritarian rather than more libertarian direction. I don't deny that, nor do I advocate (like some do) lifting 14th Amendment restrictions on the states.

Great. You're not a federalist, or you favor a massively limited interpretation of the 14th amendment.


And yes, decentralization of power is a libertarian ideal, because it means power divided and dispersed, which at the end of the day is less of a threat to liberty than having all power concentrated in the hands of a few men in DC.

Meaningless sloganeering. Feudalism was decentralized government, and incredibly oppressive. Power dispersed is still power, and it may be far, far too much power. If you had a decentralized government where each city was ruled by an oligarchy who had a loose federation for trade issues and common defense, it'd still be a massively oppressive society.

Decentralization is a method of government; it in no way supports a particular ideology of government. It can be used quite handily to support an authoritarian government. For a very good example of this, read this book:

Link (new window)

Decentralized Authoritarianism in China: The Communist Party's Control of Local Elites in the Post-Mao Era

Has the McCain campaign ever heard of online gaming?

Making fun of people using the D&D line? What is this, 1988?

Obdicut: You missed the point entirely. Yes, if you create X entites, n of them will be more libertarian and X-n will be less libertarian. That is not in the least surprising, and it does not at all demonstration that federalism increases libertarianism. At all

I think that's preferable to having a single forcibly homogenized state.

Obdicut: Great. You're not a federalist, or you favor a massively limited interpretation of the 14th amendment.

What?

And, no, I wouldn't describe myself as a "Federalist".

Obdicut: Decentralization is a method of government; it in no way supports a particular ideology of government. It can be used quite handily to support an authoritarian government

Of course you can have authoritarian decentralization. When has there ever been a libertarian centralization, though? And I don't mean anecdotes of specific instances where the Federal government overrode a state government, I mean on the whole.


I have no problem with the Federal government protecting people from an authoritarian state government. What I have a problem with is the accumulation of power in the central government that happens on top of the power of the state governments. Centralization is not a decrease in state power, it's just an increase in Federal power. The only decrease in state power that comes from it is relative, not absolute.

NeverDrunk23: Has the McCain campaign ever heard of online gaming?

I don't think they've heard of the Internet.

NeverDrunk23: Has the McCain campaign ever heard of online gaming?

Making fun of people using the D&D line? What is this, 1988?

This is the guy that used a 1967 song to describe Obama.