2016 Obama Movie

Heh, Lorelei, I must have seriously touched a nerve, because I bypassed any mention of the list and went straight to "wow." >.<

And Dimitri, maybe there are some things that shouldn't be handled so cavalierly, ya know? I forget sometimes, because I shed my religious beliefs a while ago, but it's not necessarily about logic and so I can see where it would be offensive to have those dear beliefs attacked in the way I did. In some cases there's no real defense, because it's something you just feel, or because it's a synthesis of hundreds of personal experiences.

I saw a really good Obama ad today - it stood out because it was so positive and laid out what Obama wanted to do, rather than the usual attack ads. If there's one thing that turns me off of a candidate, it's having them bring up petty, semantic complaints about the other guy. I haven't seen many ads this cycle because I only get PBS stations through my rabbit ears at home, but I'm visiting my parents in Virginia, a big battleground state. They're everywhere; so much nastiness from both sides; such little substance!

you can still get channels through rabbit ears? wow in Ohio where I used to live everything went digital, you cant get anything by antenna there. I just assumed that was true everywhere.

Hah hah, I liked the Trump challenge too Lor'. Some paper (Times was it?) asked Trump for his documents and was told "don't be so childish...".

They dont like it up 'em, do they.

Well lets not forget there's people here that can get offended and fired up by people who make the slight remark of calling you by your player nation's demonym... followed by him accusing people of being racist and attracting people by making himself look like the victim. meh...

"grow up and put on your big boy pants im sick of people defending themselves by complaining about being attacked"

I agree Montan (Dimitri), hope you don't get mad for me calling you Montan lol

No nerve, IHop, I just think that people can put forth views without being attacking or personal. Oh, you've been added to da list...that was implied in da "wow" ha ha ha ha ha

if you believe in such an important topic because you "feel" like it then you automatically give that right to everyone else which could cause some problems ex

I feel like I need to kill everyone in my town

Dimitri, you are on my list.

lorelei I don't give a shit can you entertain the idea of backing up your arguments with some logic instead of resorting to apparent charisma and vague threats on a videogame that is after all what these forums are for friendly discussion everyone seems to find you funny and charming for some reason persoanlly I find you irksome

oh my dimitri.........eyes without a face.........say your prayers!!!!!!....still roving

Dude, Dimitri, chill. I just went out of my to avoid a pointless religious argument so that we could keep sharing ideas and perspectives that might actually sway some opinions.

To point: I just watched a fascinating (and chilling) Frontline episode. I think you could probably watch it through PBS's website, and I highly recommend it.
It's called "Big Sky, Big Money."

It goes back to what shave was talking about with campaign finance - how we are somehow managing to move backwards in reforms. It's one slimeball after another trying to justify the corporate takeover of our republic by saying it's the first amendment.

Three problems:
- Corporations are not people, and should not automatically have the same rights. Period.

- Money is not the same as speech. Is it helpful to augment speech? Yes. But equating the two means that Bill Gates' first amendment rights are millions of times more powerful than mine. How's that for created equal?

- superPACs are in bed with campaigns, and 501c4 groups have been caught red-handed in there with them. That's all illegal... and it's not the sort of threesome I want...

Totally agree with you ihop.
Terrible Supreme Court decision.
Huge impact on elections.
Impact on state and local elections will be x 10.

Corporations have been legally defined as people for a very long time. There are some very good reasons for this as well. In either case, I don't think you understand that if corporations were not considered people then people would own the corporate assets directly. In other words, it would be the exact same situation in terms of rights of the asset holder.

I think we're moving forwards on reforms... I mean calling money speech seems silly, but it comes from the understanding that economic liberty is a necessary prerequisite for political liberty: a view which I'm entirely sympathetic to and wish would be applied to a multitude of other areas. I understand the importance of money in allowing people and organizations of people to get their message spread. If you say that people have unlimited free speech, but limit their ability to use money in broadcasting their message... you've just right there placed a limit on their free speech. If people want to spend money on a campaign, let them spend to their heart's content. I think you really underestimate just how ingrained people are in their views.

Dimitri,

You will die. You've sealed your fate, for I, Lorelei, will unleash drama upon thy head like no other sim member has ever known!!!! *laughs evilly

You've made an enemy out of me. Beware!

Oh and pssssssssssssssssst, the reason that everyone finds me funny is because they KNOW I'm not serious on these forums, that I am joking. I've been around this game for many years. However, in your case, I'm now making an exception. You will pay for your rudeness!!! You will be the first person I and my friends come for, and we are building. As Jiang Hu Warrior stated above, "say your prayers." :-)

Yer, dont piss off the drama queen of SC Dimitri. She has powerful allies, including me. We can make the SAW movies look like Cinderella for you.

My legions of bats shall be awakened by the strains of your tortured screams. My packs of three headed wolves shall sate themselves on your virgin flesh and my fields of grotesque malformed toadstools will give you unimagineable horror, hallucinations of a never before breached dimension of madness as the fumes from your roasting eyeballs choke the very spark of life out of you.

I kid you not.

yea there is absolutely no need for rudeness. Wolfe you suggested I was putting you guys in a position of security risk? lol Dimitri is about to start a war! lol pretty Bad when you can actually manage to tick off someone as laid back and easy going as ms. Lorelei.

See that lil pumpkin head in Crafty's mouth......that could be YOU, Dimitri!!!! Ooooooh Noes!!!! :P Even the gamemaster, Andy, knows of MY Wickedness. But I assure you, Crafty, is meaner than a junkyard dog!!! Dun even wanna go there!!!

lol must i remind people of the secured mode and level 3 unfortunate provisions that happen to be fortunate...also this is a game....im probably not going to die..... and lorelei i know your not serious but i find your humor to be childish and repetitive theres plenty of funny and clever people aswell

And since when did you, Dimitri, become the game master and dictate what I can and cannot post? If you don't wish to engage in my "sillyness" then by all means just ignore my posts. It is that simple. If Andy, the game master, has issues with me and my so called childishness and repetitiveness, then I will happily stop. If my game mates deem it inappropriate, then I will stop.

Yes there is secured mode and level 3.... but you being a jerk won't gain you allies in this game and certainly will not encourage anyone in helping you build your countries.

I am sure that my antics may not be liked by all. If you don't like, just ignore me lol

As for me being childish and silly, well all I am doing is having a good time, joking around with people, people I've known for years in this game. I'm so sorry that is so upsetting to you. I have only met two people really in the five years I've played this game that have ever found that to be upsetting. Simply amazing.

Furthermore, if me having fun makes me childish, well good, may I forever be childlike in my heart. I've been on the cusp of death, and I choose to live every day of my life laughing and enjoying people and having fun in this game. You spend your days as you choose, but don't you dare try and dictate to me. For future, it would be well of you to just not respond to my posts. I know that yours will be ignored by me in the future.

Mizore - corporations do not have to be considered people in order to prevent direct control of corporate assets by individuals. There aren't just two options. And in fact, the courts have found a third option. The personhood of corporations has typically meant simply that they could be represented legally as a single entity. This does NOT (or at least had not until recently) been interpreted as a ticket to all rights that real people have. There is an ocean of difference.

Selling our 'democracy' to the highest bidder is not moving forward. The reason that campaign donation limits are critical is that it levels the playing field. Without it, the voice of a big oil corporation will utterly drown out the voices of the farmers who don't want the pipeline going through their property (a made-up example).

Politicians follow the money just like anyone else, but unlike in the business world (or at least to a greater degree), that influence is terribly corrosive in politics, where each voice, each vote, should be equal.

There are many other places in which free speech is restrained because of a higher priority (hate speech, threats, libel/slander, etc) and I think the integrity of our elected officials is more important than the vested interests of corporations.

For the sake of argument, let's ignore the equal-footing concern for a sec. If we allow people (I reiterate: people, not corporations) to donate as much as they want, I could understand the justification for that from the 1st amendment. However, for the sake of accountability, such donations absolutely HAVE to be transparent, the sources of donation revealed. Voters have to be able to see who is funding candidates, because that can help them anticipate what decisions they will make once elected. 501c4's are PACs' way around this hurdle.

Mizore...I feel as if your discussion is about everything except the central issue.

The definition of corporations or their function isn't the central issue.

I agree that economic liberty is a prerequisite for political liberty.
However, to what degree would you believe that to be true? Certainly there must be limitations.

How you can feel that this decision is a step forward on reforms is really beyond my comprehension.

Elections on any level can now be financed anonymously.
The size or location of the community the election takes place makes no difference.
The location of the political doner makes no difference.
The level of financing has no limitations.
The lower the level the election, the easier they are to buy.

Doesn't it bother you just a little that some super-pac is telling you who should be your next state representative?

Mizore you are wrong Sarbones Oxley Act disallows people from controlling selling rights if the buyer has any controlling stake, in both sides of the exchange. So not only do individuals not own corporate assets to do what they will with, this also makes shell companies illegal to exchange assets. In reality anyone who sits on any board can not even buy their own product because of this. Interesting fact Romney had mentioned a desire to eliminate this act, which also enacts major accounting security and tax filing procedures. You know everything that WorldCom and Enron did wrong.

But alas the point wasn't to bash the criminal possible future leader of the country, it was to tell Mizore that he is wrong, DEAD WRONG! The truth is there is no positive underlying benefit to citizens united outside of the .3% that has the ability to do so. Corporate assets have NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

But as these things go I'm very dissapointed in campaign finance the candidates are just too old and don't seem to realize how cheap communication has gotten, and how desperate 24 hour news cycles are. You can run a campaign for almost nothing in todays age, and they accept donations to waste money. Newt Gingrich paid 800k to make a website in which I could have done better for the few dollars to buy the domain name. If you aren't satisfied with just the Sarbones Oxley Act I could give zounds more of regulation that prevents corporate theft, well unless it is a private company which I guess is also a person which also debunks your argument.

You know I always found this interesting not meant to be serious but... If shareholders are people, and shareholders own companies, then people own companies. If companies are people then people own people. Where does the 14th amendment fall into this?

Hey Drew, the highest court in the land has said that the 14th amendment protections apply to corporations (for example, in 1886). I don't know how they make that mesh with the idea that shareholders own the corporation. Crazy.

I heard a story today about the Attorney General race here in Pennsylvania. There have been ads funded by anonymous groups from either side, both of which have been thoroughly debunked as patently false (can we say defamation?). Both candidates have denounced the ads, and one candidate demanded that both stop airing (including the one attacking her opponent). However, they keep playing them, keep misinforming voters. Why? Because there is no accountability. Zilch.

Shave you are not in NATO anymore and this is different, NATO is not being involved here.

Hopefully you will spare NATO and Aquitania Lorelei... Dimitri has always had that attitude and he is straightforward, eventhough the damage is done and the issue has nothing to do with me I would like to apologize for the unfortunate discussion. I cannot do anything more as NATO does not follow any code or law when its members are on the forum.

Hopefully this has not soured relations between NATO and the international community... most notably Lorelei and her allies.

Wolfie, I have no issues with NATO, as a whole, or Aquitania who so sweetly hung its flag at half mast, mourning the loss of one of my fav pairs of boots.

Alas, my mission is clear, Dimitri will suffer for his/her transgressions! It is my deepest hope that your federation will not come under fire for housing such a disrespectful member. I have taken back my Kiss Of Death name, my new motto is now Death Unto Dimitri, and I am out for blood, Dimitri's blood, and I and my powerful allies WILL succeed. We are meeting tonight to decide what our plan of attack will be. Thank you for your diplomacy and your kindness.

NATO wasn't being involved in what I said either as it was never mentioned. however you felt that as a member of Nato my remarks represented NATO as a whole simply by association. that being said Dmitri is also a member of NATO, and his remarks should be taken with the same regard. however I do understand the lack of protocol in the situation. was only making the point , I guess, that his remarks were awfully rude, unwarranted and obviously a spark for an international incident, that could potentially drag NATO into an unnecessary war. no disrespect intended.