Bay 12 Games Forum

Sure? A legally mandated and defined/regulated paramilitary organization (e.g. militias) is to be allowed to have and carry firearms, for the protection of the country against threats to its freedom. Would be the more or less direct translation.

Quote from: Dorsidwarf on June 17, 2016, 02:43:30 am

Hooray, the UK has 83%!

Now if only that 83% were ANY OF THE BIG THINGS THAT MATTER

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Talking about the article mainiac linked a bit upthread. Turns out UK politicians manage to enact, to some degree, 83% of their campaign promises, on average. Currently the metaphorical opposition opinion seems to be it's only a country's equivalent to the other 17% that actually matters, and politicians are apparently filling 2/3rds+ of their campaign promises and political career in the pursuit of what amounts to fluff (or lies, or both, depending on who's talking at the moment) and barely, if ever, managing to influence anything of substantial import.

Would leave it as an exercise to the reader as to if that's actually an accurate observation of the state of things, heh. Seems to me that most people pretty badly underestimate exactly what's going on in the halls of legislature an' whatnot, but eh.

You'll get yer free rupees through murder and you'll like it. You're one of gaming history's longest lasting murderhobos and by the gods you'll live down to your reputation or else.

I wasn't saying anything about fairness. Just wanting to make sure I was reading it right.

You got that luluco reference backwards

And... well. There's a fairly consistent aesthetic, but it's... not really what it first appears. Or it is and it kinda' isn't. Things escalate pretty quickly, ehehe.

Ah, so the appearance of principles is irrelevant to you. Regardless of what a politician manages to do or how it appears they managed it, you're operating under the assumption it was somehow crooked in the background, apparently most likely in some way that makes the apparent gain a net loss.

That about right? Seems about what you just typed, at least. If it ain't, some clarification'd probably be nice.

It's also pretty bold to imply that it's impossible for a candidate to fulfill some of their bread-and-circuses quota while also serving the interests of the people and organizations that own them.

Well... yeah, that would be pretty bold. Pretty sure the implication was that they're actually fulfilling most of what they're promising to (i.e. they've got a set of principles and they're sticking to them more than not), and not much beyond that. Not that anything at all is impossible. There's plenty of folks out there that are mostly principled and still somewhat corrupt, in any case. Don't exactly like that m'self, but it's bloody hard to find someone that isn't the latter to some degree.

S'also worth noting you weren't exactly clear you were talking about the ethics of campaign finance and split loyalties, though. Didn't look like NFO was really focusing on that, either. Point looked to me like the important bit was the principles or lack thereof, and that was certainly something the linked article gave a good showing of addressing.

In other words, the research suggests that roughly a third of campaign promises made by presidential candidates are boldfaced lies and pandering.

... or, as the article said, unable to fulfilled for one reason or another. Of which the reasons are many and oft don't actually boil down to corruption. Honestly, most of what I've seen over the years really did kinda' boil down to "reality intervened" (i.e. they got the logistics wrong, the political situation changed, etc., etc.) more than lying or pandering.

I get the general viewpoint y'all have on this, in no small part because the area I'm in actually is corrupt as fuck, but you may be taking it further than appropriate.

So yeah. Candidates don't lie on the campaign trail and they can't benefit the people that fund them if they make even a trivial effort to serve the public.

2/3rds partial or full success rate is... not trivial, man. It's not perfect, but the point that was trying to be made is that it's more substantial than not. And in the face of the whole, y'know. Reality thing. That's pretty damn good. It's honestly somewhat more impressive if they are indulging in corruption at the same time, because it means they're managing that much while still porking the proverbial barrel. Does mean they'd be doing more if they weren't, but hell. It's something.

You bitch that they are unprincipled and dont care about what they say and then when I point out that is not true you bitch about changing the topic.

But c'mon, m, FD was bitching that they were insufficiently and/or inappropriately principled and didn't care about specific portions of what they say, not that they were lacking principles or concern entirely.

... that. Isn't that a lot less clear than saying "He didn't say it." or thereabouts? As noted in some other articles, some of the people with eyes on couldn't even hear gunfire.

Is also still just one guy, not multiple eyewitnesses

E: You promised multiple eye witnesses saying it didn't happen, vil! Where's our at least twopair eyes behind direct repudiation *fistshake*