|
|
Post by Aldersmaine on Sept 27, 2012 11:13:01 GMT -6
Yeah can't say I upgrade much, I usually just try to stay within the item limit, lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Sept 27, 2012 11:22:54 GMT -6
Well it's upgrade or get organised and delete everything I have....
|
|
|
|
Post by Quaddy on Sept 27, 2012 13:08:08 GMT -6
Oh Gods, the thought of not being upgraded fills me with dead terror. I have 150 items in my portfolio right now. And not having access to folders for organizing...and, dear sweet Jesus...
*falls over dead*
We've really stopped talking about this story, haven't we? Surely there is something remaining to talk about that I haven't totally taken over.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Sept 27, 2012 14:22:39 GMT -6
What do you think of the fact that Kenaz smells like smoke and fire when he calls on the Wild? I've started my addition. It's crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quaddy on Sept 27, 2012 14:29:30 GMT -6
I think that makes sense, actually. He's a dragon. Heat, smoke, and fire are usually to be found around a dragon. Perhaps something more like heated metal, or something, if you don't want to be so literal.
And your addition is fine, I'm sure. They're never as bad as you think they are, self-loathing writer that you are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Sept 27, 2012 14:59:57 GMT -6
You're just being nice because you can. ha ha. So heated metal, smoke, burning maybe. Hum hum hum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aldersmaine on Sept 27, 2012 21:44:47 GMT -6
It would be interesting having a scent of hot iron around him. And don't fret over your post, I'm the only person in this CF that's currently so rusty they can't be relied on. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Quaddy on Sept 27, 2012 22:07:22 GMT -6
People need to stop downing themselves. Sheesh. All of us are perfectly capable writers and we rely on one another to edit/critique one another honestly. That's the point of W.com and it's certainly the point of being on-line writing friends. Or, as I like to say, penpals with a hobby.
The only time your writing becomes...cumbersome, Matt, is when you over think it. When you just let the character write for his or herself, you are always brilliant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aldersmaine on Sept 28, 2012 7:01:27 GMT -6
It's quite true that if you let the character evolve naturally instead of forcing them into things the writing has a fluidity that can't be beat, lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quaddy on Sept 28, 2012 19:44:42 GMT -6
*nods* Definitely.
BTW, Matt, how does sanctuary work in your country? I'm trying to find a back-up nation in case Mitt Romney gets elected. As a highly educated female liberal (with slightly communist tendencies...in that I believe it is the duty of the people to care for one another), I am tempted to declare myself a political refugee and run to Britain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aldersmaine on Sept 28, 2012 21:04:07 GMT -6
Will you hate me Quaddy if I say the same for if Obama is re-elected? lol. Not that Mitt Romney is AT ALL a better alternative... Hey Matt, let us both know, cuz either outcome I think we're screwed here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quaddy on Sept 28, 2012 22:26:00 GMT -6
See, I'm a political science major (double major along with history), so I think I have a different perspective on it, beast. I am just tired that this election has become all about the economy. The Presidential race is not the place to discuss the economy. Why? Because the President (and, by extension, the Executive Branch) has no control over domestic policy, up to and including the economy. "Obama's policies" is a bit of a misnomer, given that there is nothing he can do with regard to laws...except sign them and execute them. And the veto, while a powerful tool, is really not to be used simply for laws that the President disagrees with on a personal level. "Romney's policies" is the name misnomer.
That being said...who has control over the economy? Truthfully, between you and me, no one, really. The economy is a beast all on its own and there really isn't much we can do that is going to keep it from rising and falling in a 20-30 year cycle, as it has done since before the United States has existed as a nation. But if we are going to argue that certain policies can aid or harm the growth of the economy (which they can), these are domestic laws...and who has control over domestic policy? Certainly not the President and his office. No, that power...that responsibility...lies squarely in the lap of our 435 Representatives and Senators. "Obamacare"? "Romneycare"? "The Ryan Plan"? Yeah, no. One, "Obamacare" looks NOTHING LIKE what President Obama originally presented to the Congress as his wish. Why? Because Congress got their hands on it, changed it, fucked with it, and passed a horrible bill. And now who do we blame it on? President Obama. Because he wanted healthcare reform. Because he's the figurehead and the scapegoat for everything going on in government. We like to pretend that the President has ANY control over Congress...and he really doesn't. Who does? Lobbyists. Super PACs The super wealthy. Congress' own pocketbooks and personal wishes. If there is a policy you don't like, it was Congress that passed it. Conversely, if there is a policy you DO like, Congress passed that as well. Can the President INFLUENCE Congress? Of course. The President is the leader of his party in the same way the Prime Minister is the leader of his/her party. So a lot of Congressmen fall in line with the party platform. But influence is not power. And most Congressmen have a number of more...influential influences to think about. Unfortunately, their constituency is usually not one of those.
I use the recent rise of the Tea Party as an example. An Infrastructure bill came through Congress earlier this year. It was similar to the transportation bill passed by FDR during the New Deal to fix roads and infrastructure and, basically, an update on the interstate bill passed under Eisenhower. What happened to that bill? Filibustered in the Senate...by Tea Party senators. Why? When a bill exactly like this helped us survive during the Great Depression? When the nation's infrastructure and interstate system are MOST DEFINITELY the purview of the Federal government. Why did they filibuster this bill? Because their party line of "NO MORE SPENDING" overshadowed even their common sense. This bill would have created thousands (if not millions) of jobs, but their loyalty to their Ayn Rand pro-corporate America got in the way.
Further, while the debt is super important, this ridiculous plan of cutting the government and then lowering our taxes is absolutely...stupid. When you have tons of credit card debt, you most certainly trim your excess spending, right? But you don't donate your savings to charity. You put it toward the debt. These "austerity measures" will certainly free up a lot of money, but turning around and handing it out as tax breaks isn't going to shrink the debt. The only thing that will shrink the debt is to cut back our spending and bring in more money. Unfortunately, that means raising taxes. But as EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN (minus the super young, of course) has contributed, in some way, to this economy (spending too much, saving not enough, trying to "keep up with the Joneses", refusing to downsize our lives to reflect our paychecks, etc), it is up to us to help pay the debt down. Problem is, the super poor don't have any money to spare, unless you want them to take out loans they can't pay back and further contribute to the problem by declaring bankruptcy and raising interest rates. So, what does that means? It means the wealthy, for whom the SYSTEM WORKED, owe more to the system. Those for whom the system proved a failure (or, for example, people whom society overlooks as not being useful--i.e. teachers, writers, historians, etc) don't have more to give.
What, then, has to happen? Not simply a shrinking of government, but a restructuring. A trimming of the excess fat (what comes to mind is our bloated defense budget and our habit of socializing healthcare for our government officials even when they are no longer government officials) is absolutely necessary. But the government has to continue to spend. The people who argue that the bailout was a failure are right. But not because it existed. Because, as many economists will argue, it wasn't big enough. It stopped the spiral, but it wasn't enough to bring us out of the hole. As private America seems to think that any regulation is too much (not seeming to realize that there are fewer regulations on them now than there were...just about ever in American history) and they refuse to hire (of course...why would they? this situation is exactly what they want--the workforce weak, pathetic, desperate, etc), it falls to the American government to do something.
This means that Privatization is NOT the answer. Why? 1) The American people have NO CONTROL over corporate America. Even if every. single. American decided not to use Colgate toothpaste, they would just move their market elsewhere and, whoops, all those factory workers are now out of a job. 2) Privatization of necessities means that the rich will get the best of everything and the poor will find themselves getting the dregs. For example, education. In Broward County (where I live), each student is allotted $6000 a school year for education. Even if every parent were to get a $6000 check from the government (which would just BANKRUPT everything as not a single parent pays $6000 in taxes to education for every child), what kind of education could they get for $6000 a year? The "cheapest" private school costs that in a single semester. So, then, private industry steps in to take over education. What happens when you buy the cheapest option? You get the cheapest product. Why should someone's socio-economic status determine the education they get? 3)The American people have a say in the American government. Hell, we ARE the American government. If only people would get themselves a damned book and read up on it once in a while...
Four is the most important. And Abraham Lincoln said it best. "A house divided cannot stand." If 300,000,000 Americans only pay for what they use, if we have this attitude of "I got mine, fuck you" and every person puts their own self-interest above that of the greater whole, we. are. screwed. And our Founding Fathers will have failed. No...we will have failed our Founding Fathers. Who, if they lived today, would be a bunch of tree-hugging liberal elitists. They were terrified of what would happen if the mob (re:the American people) got their hands on too much power. If they saw the Tea Party, I think they'd turn in their graves. Hell, Thomas Jefferson is ALREADY turning in his grave and has been since we changed our national motto to "In God We Trust" back in the 50s.
Um...I digress and will get back to my original point.
Where, then, does the President's power lie? Really, truly lie? Not in domestic policy. And certainly not in the economy. Foreign Policy. The President is our chief diplomat. He is in charge of our military, meeting foreign officials (mostly when they come here, as the Secretary of State is generally supposed to be the one that does most of the traveling), and executing the laws that Congress sends to him (or, eventually, her). And between Mitt Romney, who managed to piss off every single one of our allies and thinks Russia is our biggest enemy (still), and Barack Obama, who actually helped repair the relationship we have with our allies and made a decisive call that resulted in Osama bin Laden's death? Who allowed other nations to rise up against tyranny because the United States is kind of bound to support that sort of things...who didn't rush into a stupid war when one of our embassies was attacked. Who believes in working together as a planet to make the world a better place?
I will vote for Obama every time. And I will take a good, long, hard look at my Congressmen and decide if they're the people I want passing my laws.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quaddy on Sept 28, 2012 22:26:43 GMT -6
Holy crap, I wrote a paper. Sorry. Politics kinda gets on my nerves...
|
|
|
|
Post by Mynt on Sept 28, 2012 22:29:07 GMT -6
Hi guys. I should write things pertinent to these campfires. It's close to NaNoWriMo so my novel crew have been very vocal lately. I have problems.  I will work on something this weekend provided I don't lose my mind and run naked through the streets. That is all. |
|
|
|
Post by Mynt on Sept 28, 2012 22:37:07 GMT -6
Also, bravo Quaddy. Well said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quaddy on Sept 28, 2012 22:44:24 GMT -6
Oh gods, Nano! Thank God I'm just continuing my novel from last year (don't tell anyone I'm cheating) or I'd be panicking right about now.
Thank you, Mynt. Like I said, politics gets on my nerves. That essay wasn't meant as an indictment on anyone's personal beliefs, by the way. Just a reflection of the beliefs I have developed over the years based on tons and tons of reading. I do admit I have a bit of an intolerance for the Tea Party (and some serious sympathy for Ron Paul, whose party was stolen by a bunch of illiterates), but I feel the same for anyone who's so bent on following the party line, their common sense takes a beating. (I have my eye on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, my Representative. She's the Chairman for the DNC and an idiot. A really, really big idiot. I haven't heard an original thought from her for years.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonewolf on Sept 28, 2012 22:45:19 GMT -6
I second Mynt. Indeed a great response. Whoa, I had to read that twice. Well done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aldersmaine on Sept 28, 2012 23:11:07 GMT -6
/shakes his head at the wall of text/
(had written his own wall of text then deleted it)
.....................
I'm just going to quit.
This isn't to shut anyone up, (besides maybe myself) but I propose we avoid topics such as politics as it riles even the calmest person. Politics bugs the hell out of me, admittedly because i don't understand even a 10th of what you do.
but still we should try to keep this forum politics free if we can.
I completely agree with a large majority of what you said. the problem is I still don't see the solution that doesn't involve the dissolution or the revolution of the US with a large heaping or strife tossed into the mix. Nothing in our political world (that I've been able to see at least) has shown any true virtue for the state of our nation and it's future. It's so bloated with foolhardy, greedy, bastards who couldn't care less about the ramifications their actions have on others.
I have little hope for these next four years regardless of who wins the election. What I do know is I have seen and heard Obama speak, other then being excellent at speaking in circles and getting my bad vibes convulsing in my head... well i'll leave it at that. As for the other candidates, I honestly have had next to no exposure to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quaddy on Sept 28, 2012 23:26:19 GMT -6
Oh, please, with *my* stories, politics will always be in question.
Just one point: historically speaking, you are correct. Politics was never meant to be a career. It was meant to be a sacrifice. People were supposed to give up the comforts of their personal lives to go and serve the nation. Our government took a turn for the worse when politics became a career.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aldersmaine on Sept 28, 2012 23:29:14 GMT -6
OI Quads I modified my post even but you read it too fast! lol
But I fully agree with it being the government's worse turn, lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aldersmaine on Sept 28, 2012 23:31:10 GMT -6
Honestly I get frightened by politics. Mostly because of how many friendships (not my own) I've seen go up in flames over the differences of political opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quaddy on Sept 28, 2012 23:35:26 GMT -6
Ah, see (to reply to your edit), I love hearing Obama speak. I think he is a wonderful speaker with a great command of rhetoric. His use of the English language is so...lyrical. I've never thought he speaks in circles. I think he just is a bit more...old-fashioned in the way he speaks. Reagan, for example, was very down-to-earth and to-the-point and that is what Americans have gotten used to. But I think Obama has more in common with Kennedy, linguistically speaking. Or even further back. It's clear he's read his Founders. And I like that.
But I also see things getting better. They will get better. The economy will improve because it always does (that's the cycle) and, hopefully, the government will start protecting the rights of all its citizens: women, the LGBTBQ community, minorities, the poor, etc etc. We can finally live up to the idea our Founders had for this nation. I have to think they'll get better...or else I have to admit this nation is a failure. And our people are failures. And, for all our ignorance, our intransigence, and our fear of change, the American people is basically a good people. I have to believe that or my world crumbles around me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quaddy on Sept 28, 2012 23:37:58 GMT -6
TOO MANY Bs!!! LGBTQ!
|
|
|
|
Post by Aldersmaine on Sept 28, 2012 23:39:59 GMT -6
I can understand that. I can even believe it. I just don't think the bettering will happen... peacefully. I'd like for them to. but i expect and fear bad times ahead. Always darkest before the dawn as it were.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quaddy on Sept 28, 2012 23:43:08 GMT -6
We had to fight a war the first time, right? Change is never won through apathy.
|
|
.......................
Feb 20, 2014 10:45:16 GMT -6