Is this an Rpg Board?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <dhcp211836j5k2l6cd7tm7se47h1bs69md@4ax.com>,
Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>It is a bid to put the appointment of judges _entirely_ under GOP
>control, so that the democrats can't even delay appointment of
>partisan judges.

Bearing in mind that the filibuster was used in the 2002-2004 Senate
to block nominees with 54 to 55 votes in support, when the GOP only
had 51 seats, it seems likely that there's more going on here than
you imply. The Democrats are exploiting the rules of the Senate to
enhance their power with regard to judicial nominations. The so-called
"nuclear option" would be the Republicans exploiting the rules of
the Senate to enhance *their* power with regard to judicial nominations.
From a perspective of fairness or decency I don't see much difference
between the two cases.

I also note that, the last time I checked, the Republicans do control
the White House and both houses of Congress. Why shouldn't they be
able to appoint judges? If the Democrats want to block particularly
egregious nominees, they need to persuade some of the more moderate
Republicans in the Senate to join them in opposition. (A few moderates
who might be subject to suasion include Chaffee, Snowe and perhaps
Specter, just off the top of my head.) Taking their argument to the
public and putting pressure on the Republican majority would also be
useful. Of course, that tactic is only viable if the public would be
on their side...

Failing that, my suggestion would be for the Democrats to start winning
some elections. That's the way you gain and hold onto the priviliges
that go with governing.

--
Kyle Haight

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1W6Xd.10325$fW4.297142@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> <mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1110201736.223753.301810@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Very heavy spoilers.
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, how about the non-functional force bond. Earlier in the game you
>> could feel Kreias pain, gained a force power through it, and healing
>> applied to either of you also healed the other to an equal measure.
>
> Is this actually true? You never took damage just because she did (or
> vice
> versa) and force healing powers work on the entire team, not just you and
> Kreia. What happens if you use a medpack? I never noticed because I
> hated
> Kreia and used her as little as possible.
>
> The only time you really notice the pain is when she loses her hand at
> the
> very beginning ... and that would be a traumatic event, not merely
> "damage".

Actually, when you asked her on the Ebon Hawk about the nature of the force
bond, she said that during battle the frenzy of the battle would steel the
two of you from taking damage and feeling the pain that the other was
suffering. And the force bond applied in that force powers that normally
affected only the character that used them, when either you or Kreia used
them, would affect both of you. For example, if you cast Force Resistance
on yourself, Kreia would also have the effect.

C

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-03-08, Kyle Haight <khaight@lefDELETEtistME.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnd2oq38.u5.shadows@helena.whitefang.com>,
> shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote:
>>On 2005-03-07, mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk <mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>>> But there's many plot holes, some big some small. There's Visiras
>>> master, for instance, who hardly even gets a cameo in the game. He
>>> can't feed off of you because you're a walking hole in the force,
>>> right? Just like he is, right? That's why he was such a pushover,
>>> right? OK, so why don't he feed on his own Jedi, swarming over the
>>> ship? Or the other jedi accompanying the PC?
>>
>>Because he's after you.
>
> Earlier you said that the reason it was so easy to get to Nihilus was
> because individuals didn't matter to him. Now you're saying that the
> reason he ignores the other Jedi available for him to feed on is
> because he's focussed on me as an individual.
>
> I sense a contradiction in the Force.

I don't see a contradiction there. Your character isn't exactly a
peon.

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-03-08, Charles Whitney <cbillingsw@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Actually, when you asked her on the Ebon Hawk about the nature of the force
> bond, she said that during battle the frenzy of the battle would steel the
> two of you from taking damage and feeling the pain that the other was
> suffering. And the force bond applied in that force powers that normally
> affected only the character that used them, when either you or Kreia used
> them, would affect both of you. For example, if you cast Force Resistance
> on yourself, Kreia would also have the effect.
>

Kreia herself tells you, if you gain enough influence, that she
doesn't want nor need your trust. She simply wants you to listen
and make up your own mind.

Kreia is Darth Traya the betrayer. As LS you can still try to
have her redeem herself up until her very last breath.

Everyone else and I do mean everyone else, who knows anything
about Force bonds will tell you they never heard of anyone dying
from one.

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-03-08, shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote:
> On 2005-03-08, Kyle Haight <khaight@lefDELETEtistME.org> wrote:
>> In article <slrnd2oq38.u5.shadows@helena.whitefang.com>,
>> shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote:
>>>On 2005-03-07, mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk <mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> But there's many plot holes, some big some small. There's Visiras
>>>> master, for instance, who hardly even gets a cameo in the game. He
>>>> can't feed off of you because you're a walking hole in the force,
>>>> right? Just like he is, right? That's why he was such a pushover,
>>>> right? OK, so why don't he feed on his own Jedi, swarming over the
>>>> ship? Or the other jedi accompanying the PC?
>>>
>>>Because he's after you.
>>
>> Earlier you said that the reason it was so easy to get to Nihilus was
>> because individuals didn't matter to him. Now you're saying that the
>> reason he ignores the other Jedi available for him to feed on is
>> because he's focussed on me as an individual.
>>
>> I sense a contradiction in the Force.
>
> I don't see a contradiction there. Your character isn't exactly a
> peon.
>
>

Sorry to double post but I felt I needed to clarify. Nihilus did
go after you by sending Visas -- the last remaining artifact of
his compassion. It's by doing this that he sets himself up to be
destroyed. In my previous posts I explained this thoroughly.

When he arrives at Telos he does it because Kreia made sure he
thought he'd find Jedi there to destroy. He had no idea though
that you were creeping up on him. He looks quite surprised in
fact.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"shadows" <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd2q9oi.25v.shadows@helena.whitefang.com...
> On 2005-03-08, Charles Whitney <cbillingsw@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually, when you asked her on the Ebon Hawk about the nature of the
>> force
>> bond, she said that during battle the frenzy of the battle would steel
>> the
>> two of you from taking damage and feeling the pain that the other was
>> suffering. And the force bond applied in that force powers that normally
>> affected only the character that used them, when either you or Kreia used
>> them, would affect both of you. For example, if you cast Force
>> Resistance
>> on yourself, Kreia would also have the effect.
>>
>
> Kreia herself tells you, if you gain enough influence, that she
> doesn't want nor need your trust. She simply wants you to listen
> and make up your own mind.
>
> Kreia is Darth Traya the betrayer. As LS you can still try to
> have her redeem herself up until her very last breath.
>
> Everyone else and I do mean everyone else, who knows anything
> about Force bonds will tell you they never heard of anyone dying
> from one.

Yes, and?

The point wasn't about whether Kreia was lying to you about it. It was
about why your character was essentially incapacitated for a moment when
Kreia lost her hand, which was explained by the force bond, but why that
force bond wouldn't similarly affect you when she's taking damage in the
middle of a battle. Whether or not she's lying about the explanation makes
no difference, because it was only there to explain that apparent
inconsistency, and not further a plot.

C

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-03-08, Charles Whitney <cbillingsw@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yes, and?
>
> The point wasn't about whether Kreia was lying to you about it. It was
> about why your character was essentially incapacitated for a moment when
> Kreia lost her hand, which was explained by the force bond, but why that
> force bond wouldn't similarly affect you when she's taking damage in the
> middle of a battle. Whether or not she's lying about the explanation makes
> no difference, because it was only there to explain that apparent
> inconsistency, and not further a plot.

When close to Kreia the Exile never experiences shared pain. In
battle if Kreia got hit or even went down you didn't feel a
thing.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly khaight@lefDELETEtistME.org (Kyle Haight) Spake Unto All:

>you imply. The Democrats are exploiting the rules of the Senate to
>enhance their power with regard to judicial nominations. The so-called
>"nuclear option" would be the Republicans exploiting the rules of
>the Senate to enhance *their* power with regard to judicial nominations.
>From a perspective of fairness or decency I don't see much difference
>between the two cases.

You don't feel it's fairer or more decent if the representatives of
the 49.3% of the population which did not vote for GOP could, as a
last resort, have a means to delay appointment of unacceptably
activist judges?

The white house nominates activist judges knowing full well they're
unacceptable to the democrats, and hence will be filibustered. The
white house even re-submits the same extremely non-mainstream
candidates (usually passionate anti-abortionists like William G. Myers
III but also anti-environmentalists and bible-thumping
anti-evolutionists) which have already been filibustered, in a
conscious effort to justify employing the nuclear option.

The "nuclear option" is a change which would change the necessary
votes needed to stop filibuster from 60 to 51.

The GOP holds 55 seats in the Senate, so that the "nuclear option"
means they not only don't have to get any democrats to support them,
they don't even have to make all republicans do.

>I also note that, the last time I checked, the Republicans do control
>the White House and both houses of Congress. Why shouldn't they be
>able to appoint judges?

Because they represent 50.7% of the population they should not be
required to at least *try* to find candidates acceptable to the
representatives of the other 49.3% of the population?

>If the Democrats want to block particularly
>egregious nominees, they need to persuade some of the more moderate
>Republicans in the Senate to join them in opposition.

That option is effectively also gone with the nuclear option, as the
dems would need 6 reps to vote for them and against their own party
_just to delay the appointment_. Which simply isn't going to happen,
probably not even if the white house nominated Michael Moore for the
supreme court.

>(A few moderates
>who might be subject to suasion include Chaffee, Snowe and perhaps
>Specter, just off the top of my head.)

I think you'll find that recent crackdowns on dissidents within the
GOP means it's now highly unlikely any senator will vote against their
party.

>Taking their argument to the
>public and putting pressure on the Republican majority would also be
>useful. Of course, that tactic is only viable if the public would be
>on their side...

"The public" being a number greater than 49.3% of the population.

>Failing that, my suggestion would be for the Democrats to start winning
>some elections. That's the way you gain and hold onto the priviliges
>that go with governing.

What I think will happen, is that the republicans will lose power
through corruption and abuse of power.

How, exactly, they could possibly abuse power sufficiently to get
people to vote against them is unclear. I mean, abducting an innocent
canadian citizen and sending him to Syria for incarceration and
torture on the sole grounds that his name was similar to that of a
known terrorist, and then refusing to even apologize, certainly didn't
inconvenience the administration, so what could?

I suspect perhaps the reality of what it means to be at the mercy of
the Chinese central bank will prove sufficient. Not only is it already
impossible for the US to do anything which angers China, but
eventually China will tire of paying for US consumtion, and demand
financial reform. And GOP, being a pure populist party, is simply
incapable of tough decisions.


--
"Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
-- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> Spake Unto All:

>Everyone else and I do mean everyone else, who knows anything
>about Force bonds will tell you they never heard of anyone dying
>from one.

They will also tell you that noone forms bonds like you, and do not
rule out that the bond may be fatal.


--
"Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
-- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-03-08, Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Thusly shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>Everyone else and I do mean everyone else, who knows anything
>>about Force bonds will tell you they never heard of anyone dying
>>from one.
>
> They will also tell you that noone forms bonds like you, and do not
> rule out that the bond may be fatal.

That's assuming it was even a bonifide bond and you just have
Kreia's word to go on.

Sion states several times that Kreias words will not "crawl"
within his skull anymore and weaken him. I think whatever power
she has over you in the beginning of the game she had over Sion
at one point. Although, not surprisingly it didn't weaken the
Exile. It just made him stronger.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <70rq21hrnh9u4sck5e98haerfs3u1fu9k0@4ax.com>, mike_noren2002
@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk says...
> Thusly khaight@lefDELETEtistME.org (Kyle Haight) Spake Unto All:

> You don't feel it's fairer or more decent if the representatives of
> the 49.3% of the population which did not vote for GOP could, as a
> last resort, have a means to delay appointment of unacceptably
> activist judges?

By "unacceptably activist" I take it you mean "activist in a direction
you don't happen to like".

> The white house nominates activist judges knowing full well they're
> unacceptable to the democrats, and hence will be filibustered. The
> white house even re-submits the same extremely non-mainstream
> candidates (usually passionate anti-abortionists like William G. Myers
> III but also anti-environmentalists and bible-thumping
> anti-evolutionists) which have already been filibustered, in a
> conscious effort to justify employing the nuclear option.

I looked up Myers on the web and there's nothing at all about his
opinions on abortion - he does favour rights for landowners, so the eco-
lobby don't like him.

Not that I can see any reason to block a judge on the basis that he is
opposed to abortion. By what right do you assert that all judges must
in future be pro-abortion, or lukewarm in their opposition to it?

> >If the Democrats want to block particularly
> >egregious nominees, they need to persuade some of the more moderate
> >Republicans in the Senate to join them in opposition.
>
> That option is effectively also gone with the nuclear option, as the
> dems would need 6 reps to vote for them and against their own party
> _just to delay the appointment_. Which simply isn't going to happen,
> probably not even if the white house nominated Michael Moore for the
> supreme court.

How would that just delay the appointment? Filibustering causes delays,
voting against a judge stops his appointment and allows government to
get on with other business.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <dhcp211836j5k2l6cd7tm7se47h1bs69md@4ax.com>, mike_noren2002
@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk says...
> Thusly Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> Spake Unto All:
>
> >> He still hasn't got a majority of puppets in the supreme court, if
> >> that's what you mean, but he will before his term is up, and for
> >> controlling judges in general do a google search for "nuclear option"
> >> and "filibuster".
> >
> >> He pwns the judicial system.
> >
> >For "puppet" read "judge whose outlook is somewhat similar to that of
> >the average US citizen".
>
> No, I mean puppet. Someone who does what he's told and has no outlook
> of his own at all.

But in your other post you complain instead about appointees who have
"passionate" views you don't like. Seems to me the only judges you are
willing to accept are those who stand for the causes you support.

> >If I recall correctly, the stuff about "nuclear option" and
> >"filibuster" is something to do with changing some procedural rules that
> >the Democratic minority are using to paralyse the process of government.
> >Hardly equates to "controlling judges".
>
> It is a bid to put the appointment of judges _entirely_ under GOP
> control, so that the democrats can't even delay appointment of
> partisan judges.

Surely it is a bid to put the appointment under majority control, in
accordance with the apparent intent of the Constitution?

- Gerry Quinn




>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Charles Whitney wrote:

>
> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:1W6Xd.10325$fW4.297142@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> > <mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:1110201736.223753.301810@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> Very heavy spoilers.
> > >
> > >
> >> .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >> .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >> .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >> OK, how about the non-functional force bond. Earlier in the game you
> >> could feel Kreias pain, gained a force power through it, and healing
> >> applied to either of you also healed the other to an equal measure.
> >
> > Is this actually true? You never took damage just because she did (or
> > vice
> > versa) and force healing powers work on the entire team, not just you and
> > Kreia. What happens if you use a medpack? I never noticed because I
> > hated
> > Kreia and used her as little as possible.
> >
> > The only time you really notice the pain is when she loses her hand at
> > the
> > very beginning ... and that would be a traumatic event, not merely
> > "damage".
>
> Actually, when you asked her on the Ebon Hawk about the nature of the force
> bond, she said that during battle the frenzy of the battle would steel the
> two of you from taking damage and feeling the pain that the other was
> suffering. And the force bond applied in that force powers that normally
> affected only the character that used them, when either you or Kreia used
> them, would affect both of you. For example, if you cast Force Resistance
> on yourself, Kreia would also have the effect.
>
> C
<end quote>

By the way, is getting one's hand cut off a trendy thing in the Star Wars
universe? Luke and his dad got that, now even in the KoTOR game we also have a
true cut (Kreia) and a "virtual" cut (the player).... Seesh, there must have
been some secret Cult of Hand Cutting running around....

Regards

--
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Aaaaah yourself!.....Uh, oh-o!"
-Serious 'Second Encounter' Sam-
-------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <422d2275_2@news.tm.net.my>,
ChoyKw <newsreader@newsgroup.com> wrote:
>Charles Whitney wrote:
>
>>
>> "Allan C Cybulskie" <allan.c.cybulskie@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>> news:1W6Xd.10325$fW4.297142@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> >
>> > <mike_noren2002@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:1110201736.223753.301810@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >> Very heavy spoilers.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >> .
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >> .
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >> .
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>
>By the way, is getting one's hand cut off a trendy thing in the Star Wars
>universe? Luke and his dad got that, now even in the KoTOR game we also have a
>true cut (Kreia) and a "virtual" cut (the player).... Seesh, there must have
>been some secret Cult of Hand Cutting running around....

This seems to be one of the mythic tropes of the Star Wars universe.
The underlying conflict (light vs. dark side) never changes, and as
a result the specific actions and arguments made by specific people
often fall into patterns. Compare the Vader/Luke "join me" speech in
TESB with the Dooku/Kenobi "join me" speech in AotC, for example. I
suspect the hand-chopping thing is similar.

Either that or nobody involved in Star Wars has any creativity left.
That might be a more plausible real-world explanation.

--
Kyle Haight

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c966388a96eda29989ee1@news.indigo.ie...
> In article <ko6m21dmhdfhs6j22na4pinbsv0tq5ldb0@4ax.com>, mike_noren2002
> @NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk says...
>> Thusly "Ceowulf" <ceo@NOSPAMii.ATALLnet> Spake Unto All:
>>
>> >Not to get into politics here, but wasnt he just essentially given the
>> >birdy
>> >by a supreme court judge who said the president has no power over the
>> >judicialsystem?
>>
>> He still hasn't got a majority of puppets in the supreme court, if
>> that's what you mean, but he will before his term is up, and for
>> controlling judges in general do a google search for "nuclear option"
>> and "filibuster".
>
>> He pwns the judicial system.

It's the judicial system that's the problem, not the president. For decades
now we've had the Supreme Court effectively writing laws and thus usurping
the power of the Congress, and federal judges doing the same to state
legislatures. And nowhere does the Constitution give justices or judges any
such power.

The result of this has been to violate the principle of separation of
powers, and break the system of checks and balances that that's supposed to
ensure.


>
> For "puppet" read "judge whose outlook is somewhat similar to that of
> the average US citizen".

Exactly right.


>
> If I recall correctly, the stuff about "nuclear option" and
> "filibuster" is something to do with changing some procedural rules that
> the Democratic minority are using to paralyse the process of government.
> Hardly equates to "controlling judges".

Bingo, exactly right again.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Mean_Chlorine" <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:70rq21hrnh9u4sck5e98haerfs3u1fu9k0@4ax.com...
> Thusly khaight@lefDELETEtistME.org (Kyle Haight) Spake Unto All:
>
>>you imply. The Democrats are exploiting the rules of the Senate to
>>enhance their power with regard to judicial nominations. The so-called
>>"nuclear option" would be the Republicans exploiting the rules of
>>the Senate to enhance *their* power with regard to judicial nominations.
>>From a perspective of fairness or decency I don't see much difference
>>between the two cases.
>
> You don't feel it's fairer or more decent if the representatives of
> the 49.3% of the population which did not vote for GOP could, as a
> last resort, have a means to delay appointment of unacceptably
> activist judges?

Oh, come on. You don't mean "delay," you mean sabotage the Senate majority
and subject them to extortion. It's "activist judges" that you *like*,
provided they're judges who can discover things in the Constitution that no
one who reads plain English can find there, and/or force states and
municipalities to bow to every whimsical left-wing notion that enters their
heads. They have no constitutional authority to do these things and do them
anyway, and too often get away with it.

What you mean by "unacceptably activist" is really just strict
constructionist, isn't that so? It's a plain, honest reading of the
Constitution and rulings made accordingly that you have a great problem
with. It's the *return* to that sort of honesty that frightens you.


>
> The white house nominates activist judges knowing full well they're
> unacceptable to the democrats, and hence will be filibustered. The
> white house even re-submits the same extremely non-mainstream
> candidates (usually passionate anti-abortionists like William G. Myers
> III but also anti-environmentalists and bible-thumping
> anti-evolutionists) which have already been filibustered, in a
> conscious effort to justify employing the nuclear option.
>
> The "nuclear option" is a change which would change the necessary
> votes needed to stop filibuster from 60 to 51.

Welcome to the idea of representative government. There is no requirement in
the Constitution or in law that a minority of senators, whether 41 or 49,
can delay, undermine, sabotage or cripple the work of the Senate. The rules
of filibuster were created within the Senate and have changed a great deal
over the years. For example, it's been a long time since filibusters were
done the way Frank Capra showed in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."


>
> The GOP holds 55 seats in the Senate, so that the "nuclear option"
> means they not only don't have to get any democrats to support them,
> they don't even have to make all republicans do.
>
>>I also note that, the last time I checked, the Republicans do control
>>the White House and both houses of Congress. Why shouldn't they be
>>able to appoint judges?
>
> Because they represent 50.7% of the population they should not be
> required to at least *try* to find candidates acceptable to the
> representatives of the other 49.3% of the population?

In a word, No. Where on earth do you get the idea that "49.3% of the
population" is opposed to the President's judicial choices anyway? Nowhere
near that number of the *Senate* is even opposed to them, and it seems safe
to say that generally speaking, Democratic senators are far more likely to
oppose these choices than the whole population is. You evidently are
presuming that because 49.3% of the *people who voted* did not vote for
Bush, the same 49.3% of the *whole population* must be against everything he
does. Is that what you really believe?

Again: this is representative government. Whatever it does and however it
works, some people will like it and some people won't. That's how the world
works. People disagree all the time.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

shadows in <slrnd2mhdc.gq8.shadows@helena.whitefang.com>:

> On 2005-03-06, Ceowulf <ceo@NOSPAMii.ATALLnet> wrote:
....
> > Or is he actually powerful, using the game rules without cheating I.e. a
> > epic level Sith Lord? A real challange that requires tactics and the use of
> > as many items as you can get a hold of ala BG2 Improved Irenicus battles
> > etc.
>
> In case you haven't noticed we're discussing KOTOR2 and not
> BG2. This isn't some D&D hack'n'slash.

In case you haven't noticed, in KotOR2 the player is supposed to fool
around with attributes, skills, feats, powers, equipment, upgrades,
crafting, tactics and such, just like in any other tactical game of the d20
variety. So supposedly the stuff is supposed to matter ... But it doesn't,
not really.

Contrast this to KotOR where even a couple thugs or Kath Hounds could kill
you if you made bad choices and used bad tactics, and if you went solo then
you had to make pretty good choices and use pretty good tactics or else.

It is a real pity because KotOR2 gives the player many more options and
powers, but nothing at all to use them on.
--
Rechenzentrum für Apotheken Hildegard Schröter GmbH
06886 Lutherstadt Wittenberg, Berliner Str. 60
Tel 03491/410435, Fax 03491/411031
IK 301200242, IK 661510010, RZ 009

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <70rq21hrnh9u4sck5e98haerfs3u1fu9k0@4ax.com>,
Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>You don't feel it's fairer or more decent if the representatives of
>the 49.3% of the population which did not vote for GOP could, as a
>last resort, have a means to delay appointment of unacceptably
>activist judges?

The relevant population breakdown isn't the Presidential popular vote,
it's the breakdown by representation in the Senate. And the situation
we have there now is one where 40% of the Senate can and is blocking
judicial appointments that are acceptable to 55+% of the members of
that body.

And, as has been stated by another responder to your post, "unacceptably
activist" is in the eye of the beholder. What you're basically saying
is that the minority doesn't like some of these judicial candidates,
and you want them to be able to use the rules of the Senate to block
them. It isn't obvious to me why that minority view should trump
the desire of the majority, who do like these candidates, to want to
use the rules of the Senate to confirm them. Historically, 51 votes
of support in the Senate has been sufficient to get confirmed. Why does
that magically change just because your side lost some key elections?

>Because they represent 50.7% of the population they should not be
>required to at least *try* to find candidates acceptable to the
>representatives of the other 49.3% of the population?

Even when the members of the opposing party are not acting in good faith?
(Cf. recently elected Democratic Senator Ken Salazar, who promised to
support Meyers and then reneged after winning election. It's funny how
some of those candidates are acceptable when Democrats have to face voters,
and then suddenly become unacceptable when it comes time to actually vote
on them.)

If anything, the Republicans are under-represented in the Senate. If
all the states Bush carried in 2004 sent Republicans to the Senate, and
all the states Kerry carried sent Democrats, the GOP would have a 62-38
margin.

>That option is effectively also gone with the nuclear option, as the
>dems would need 6 reps to vote for them and against their own party
>_just to delay the appointment_.

Delay for how long? You and I both know that in this context "delay"
is a euphemism for "reject by minority veto". Don't pretend like the
goal is to delay someone's appointment by six months or something. The
goal here is for a minority to veto judicial appointments supported by
a majority of the population and a significant majority of the Senate
itself.

>Which simply isn't going to happen, probably not even if the white
>house nominated Michael Moore for the supreme court.

Then might I suggest that pushing the Republicans to the nuclear
option is a form of political suicide? The Democrats would do better
to pick the less objectionable of the filibustered nominees and bring
them to full floor votes. That would give them a much stronger leg
to stand on when they hold firm against the remainder; as-is they're
just painting themselves as knee-jerk oppositionists whith whom negotiation
is pointless. They're facing a steam-roller and they're begging the
guy behind the wheel to run them over. That's stupid.

>"The public" being a number greater than 49.3% of the population.

"The public" being a sufficient number of people to convince Senators
up for election that they are hurting themselves by supporting these
nominees. That's a lot less than 49.3% of the population. It's all about
the margins.

For that matter, I don't remember the Clinton administration being all
that worried about the 57% of the population that didn't vote for *him*
in 1992. Or is it more important to respect the tender sensibilities
of the minority when the minority is Democratic?

>What I think will happen, is that the republicans will lose power
>through corruption and abuse of power.

Well, given that you obviously dislike the Republicans, I'd think you'd
want that process to happen as soon as possible, right? If this is
a genuine instance of overreach that the public will reject, then
why not let the GOP overreach and get thrown out of power by the backlash?

>How, exactly, they could possibly abuse power sufficiently to get
>people to vote against them is unclear. I mean, abducting an innocent
>canadian citizen and sending him to Syria for incarceration and
>torture on the sole grounds that his name was similar to that of a
>known terrorist, and then refusing to even apologize, certainly didn't
>inconvenience the administration, so what could?

Like the way the Clinton administration threw an innocent child
back into the hands of a bunch of Cuban communist thugs and claimed
it was done in the name of family values?

For what it's worth, my guess is that the GOP will lose power in
roughly the same way the Democrats did over the last several decades:
their political coalition will fracture. The current lynchpin holding
the Republican coalition together is national security. As 9/11 recedes
farther into memory, and the democratization of the Middle East proceeds,
national security will come to weigh less heavily in the public mind.
At the same time, the frictions between the various elements of the GOP
coalition will grow as the things they agree on are put in place and
the remainder of the party's agenda requires elevating some parts of
the coalition above others. Eventually, as these frictions build, it
will become impossible for the GOP to put together an electoral majority.

--
Kyle Haight

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"shadows" <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd2rbjp.2ui.shadows@helena.whitefang.com...
> On 2005-03-08, Charles Whitney <cbillingsw@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes, and?
>>
>> The point wasn't about whether Kreia was lying to you about it. It was
>> about why your character was essentially incapacitated for a moment when
>> Kreia lost her hand, which was explained by the force bond, but why that
>> force bond wouldn't similarly affect you when she's taking damage in the
>> middle of a battle. Whether or not she's lying about the explanation
>> makes
>> no difference, because it was only there to explain that apparent
>> inconsistency, and not further a plot.
>
> When close to Kreia the Exile never experiences shared pain. In
> battle if Kreia got hit or even went down you didn't feel a
> thing.

Yes, and the reason for that was given in the explanation I cited. So what
exactly was your point again?

C

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <d69s21dnk2ij25cb293r1ds343vdv0t7th@4ax.com>,
Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>What's happened is largely that various politicians haven't liked that
>there ARE checks and balances when they've tried to mess with the
>constitution.

It's probably more accurate to say that the courts, by virtue of the
way judges are selected, are usually the last part of government to
be impacted by a shift in public political alignment. This was true
in the last such major shift, in 1933, towards the Democrats. Remember
how many of FDR's early New Deal laws were struck down by the Supreme
Court in the early to mid 1930's?

I wonder what your opinion is of FDR's threat to have his rubber-stamp
Congress pack the Supreme Court? That strikes me as a much more egregious
attempt by the executive branch to control the courts than anything
George W. Bush has ever done, yet FDR is one of the great idols of the
Democratic party.

--
Kyle Haight

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> Spake Unto All:

>> You don't feel it's fairer or more decent if the representatives of
>> the 49.3% of the population which did not vote for GOP could, as a
>> last resort, have a means to delay appointment of unacceptably
>> activist judges?
>
>By "unacceptably activist" I take it you mean "activist in a direction
>you don't happen to like".

Yes, if I was a bible-thumping creationist anti-abortionist I'd be
thrilled to bits.

>Not that I can see any reason to block a judge on the basis that he is
>opposed to abortion. By what right do you assert that all judges must
>in future be pro-abortion, or lukewarm in their opposition to it?

By the exact same right I assert he should not be an active member of
the KKK, or a pro-choice activist either - I don't like politically
motivated judges. Judges have to interprete the law, that's hard
enough without going out of their way to further an agenda.
I don't believe the judicial system needs to be more politicized.

In case you didn't notice, I'm saying it'd be nice if the Bush
administration nominated judges which were sufficiently
middle-of-the-road that at least 5 (of 45) democrat senators would
rather accept them as judges than stay in session over, say, a holiday
- that would be sufficient with present rules.

But the whole point of the nuclear option is that Bush don't *want*
cooperation or bipartisan solutions. He don't *want* acceptable
compromises. He simply wants puppets in key positions.

>> That option is effectively also gone with the nuclear option, as the
>> dems would need 6 <typo: should read 4> reps to vote for them and against their own party
>> _just to delay the appointment_.
>
>How would that just delay the appointment?

Presently 60 votes are needed to stop a filibuster; after the change
51 votes are needed.

>- Gerry Quinn

--
"Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
-- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly Gerry Quinn <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> Spake Unto All:

>> It is a bid to put the appointment of judges _entirely_ under GOP
>> control, so that the democrats can't even delay appointment of
>> partisan judges.
>
>Surely it is a bid to put the appointment under majority control, in
>accordance with the apparent intent of the Constitution?

If bipartisan compromise is bad, and a majority of 0.7% is a solid
mandate from the people, then yes, sure.

Me, I agree with Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush
(sorry, that was silly. I just happened to notice Wikipedia'd been
hacked.)

>- Gerry Quinn

--
"Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
-- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> Spake Unto All:

>> They will also tell you that noone forms bonds like you, and do not
>> rule out that the bond may be fatal.
>
>That's assuming it was even a bonifide bond and you just have
>Kreia's word to go on.

No, I have the games word on the bond. The PC said he was almost
incapacitated when her hand was lopped off, and the game gave me a
force power.

>Sion states several times that Kreias words will not "crawl"
>within his skull anymore and weaken him. I think whatever power
>she has over you in the beginning of the game she had over Sion
>at one point. Although, not surprisingly it didn't weaken the
>Exile. It just made him stronger.

Personally I still think you're rationalizing a plot-hole.


--
"Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
-- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-03-08, Mean_Chlorine <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Thusly shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> Spake Unto All:
>
>>> They will also tell you that noone forms bonds like you, and do not
>>> rule out that the bond may be fatal.
>>
>>That's assuming it was even a bonifide bond and you just have
>>Kreia's word to go on.
>
> No, I have the games word on the bond. The PC said he was almost
> incapacitated when her hand was lopped off, and the game gave me a
> force power.

Perhaps they should have had something right before Malachor V
that severed the bond. It wouldn't have hurt to bring that issue
to a close.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly khaight@lefDELETEtistME.org (Kyle Haight) Spake Unto All:

>>What's happened is largely that various politicians haven't liked that
>>there ARE checks and balances when they've tried to mess with the
>>constitution.
>
>It's probably more accurate to say that the courts, by virtue of the
>way judges are selected, are usually the last part of government to
>be impacted by a shift in public political alignment.

In other words, the courts are presently more liberal, or more
accurately more libertarian, than the american public?

That is possibly true, although I note that the percentage of voters
who cite moral reasons for their choice has been _halved_ since 1996.
I would also say that the inertia of the courts is intentional, to
dampen the mood swings of public opinion.

--
"Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
-- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.