Presidential candidates explained using D&D character sheets

infected slut princess · Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:43 pm

http://www.funnyordie.com/lists/e0cb035 ... ter-sheets

that's funny. You should have a look and you will laugh.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Thu Nov 10, 2011 11:18 pm

]I have to object, former senator frothy mixture does not speak any rural Pennsylvania dialect I have ever heard - if he dropped a few more yinz jagovs annat and used imperatives without gerands or proper infinitives he might have won his last re-election bid.

Plus they missed the humor value in his being a founding member of America's Enemies

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:03 am

I saw that earlier. It was ok, but honestly way too focused on bashing the republicans in a completely mean spirited way. I realize that's partially because the current candidate hopefuls are dicks, but it basically amounted to fellating Obama, and pissing on everyone else, deserved or not.

Also Santorum's name was made a word for a frothy mixture after his political activity. Funny and honestly really dumb at the same time. A homosexual rights group held a contest for creating a meaning for santorum, and that won.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:27 am

Prak as a former constituent of Santorum's I'm well aware that Dan Savage ( who is active for homosexual (and straight) rights, but who is not a "group" ) asked for suggestions and votes on suggestions in response to public remarks where Santorum was just quoting the current Catholic Church doctrine. Despite the sniggering and talk of his "google problem", he'd be a joke candidate anyways because he could not realistically even win his "home" state after such wonders as telling Millvale residents "tough luck" in the face of post Ivan flooding and having the Post-Gazette's candidate questionairre returned from his official address of record as deliverable in the middle of his re-election campaign. Even if the current Gerrymandering Effort succeeds he couldn't carry enough of PA to be a credible candidate.

******

But yes, it would be a more effective satire if it lowered Obama's stats, or at least had pre-election and post election (expired buffs) values and poked some fun at Biden, Hillary and the other Democrats who would be running if they didn't have an incumbent candidate.

infected slut princess · Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:28 am

What? are they really blowing Obama? Maybe. But when it says the following under Obama's skills, "DRONE STRIKE - +200 dmg on terrorist (95% likely to kill an innocent person instead)," I sense that they aren't exactly sucking Obama's cock unless they think murdering innocent people is really funny.

In any case, all the Republican candidates DO deserve ridicule. AND they deserve it in a MEAN-SPIRITED WAY. Well except for Ron Paul who is a decent good anti-war anti-state candidate. Everyone else is just a run-of-the-mill pro-Establishment creep who want lots of war and power and debt. Just like... basically every other politician.

I mean seriously, why would any sane person NOT want to ridicule these idiots? And why would any sane person give a fuck if they make fun of fucking deadbeats like Former Senator Anal Froth or Bloated Bag-of-Shit Newt, or Cain the Pizza Man who wants to fondle all the buxom white chicks? All these losers are great fodder for ridicule. The more the merrier -- anything that shows a total lack of respect for politicians is actually pretty awesome I think.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:12 am

To be fair, you can tell that it's liberals who are writing the list, because Obama's flaws are:

1) Killing innocent non Americans, something Republican's are totally fine with.

2) Giving in to Republicans. Whereas real republicans will sit there with a straight face and complain about how Obama is too mean to them, and never lets them talk, and rams legislation down their throat.

Normally I'd have to tell you to trust me, because I have to deal with these people all the time, but in this case, all I have to do is summon Tzor/Doom/GX/PR who will tell you that mean Obama really doesn't cave to stupid republican tax cuts. And he really is meanly shoving things down their throat without letting them talk.

Gx1080 · Post by **Gx1080** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:49 am

Who, me? I just say that Obama is just another bankster whore. Same as pretty much every politician except Ron Paul.

Count Arioch the 28th · Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:31 am

Too bad Ron Paul is batshit fucking insane. But not in a way that's at least amusing.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 5:03 am

I just say that Obama is just another bankster whore. Same as pretty much every politician except Ron Paul.

NO HE'S GONNA CHANGE AMERICA

Prak as a former constituent of Santorum's I'm well aware that Dan Savage ( who is active for homosexual (and straight) rights, but who is not a "group" ) asked for suggestions and votes on suggestions in response to public remarks where Santorum was just quoting the current Catholic Church doctrine. Despite the sniggering and talk of his "google problem", he'd be a joke candidate anyways because he could not realistically even win his "home" state after such wonders as telling Millvale residents "tough luck" in the face of post Ivan flooding and having the Post-Gazette's candidate questionairre returned from his official address of record as deliverable in the middle of his re-election campaign.

santorum is a weak debater, very easily frustrated. he says he's a catholic but his views are evangelical (republican) christian whereas the catholic church is usually more economically liberal. fortunately most of america realizes he's a nutter

[TGFBS]
Wishing death on someone, even in the hypothetical, is not allowed.
[/TGFBS]

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:48 am

Funniest part about the Catholic and Lutheran communities and the generally liberal economics is that it really confuses the crap out of young libertarians who don't understand why they can't get any traction in mid-western states like Minnesota. It's the worst possible scenario for them, really, since Catholics are supposed to give to the poor and are squicked out by gays and are obviously against abortion. It's just a total non-starter.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 10:52 am

Josh_Kablack wrote:Prak as a former constituent of Santorum's I'm well aware that Dan Savage ( who is active for homosexual (and straight) rights, but who is not a "group" ) asked for suggestions and votes on suggestions in response to public remarks where Santorum was just quoting the current Catholic Church doctrine. Despite the sniggering and talk of his "google problem", he'd be a joke candidate anyways because he could not realistically even win his "home" state after such wonders as telling Millvale residents "tough luck" in the face of post Ivan flooding and having the Post-Gazette's candidate questionairre returned from his official address of record as deliverable in the middle of his re-election campaign. Even if the current Gerrymandering Effort succeeds he couldn't carry enough of PA to be a credible candidate.

******

But yes, it would be a more effective satire if it lowered Obama's stats, or at least had pre-election and post election (expired buffs) values and poked some fun at Biden, Hillary and the other Democrats who would be running if they didn't have an incumbent candidate.

Ah, I misremembered. But yes, it'd be funnier if it weren't so heavy handed on the republi-hate, and more even across the board. Obama's flaws basically boil down to "might kill innocents" and "can't please them nasty, evil republicans."

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:58 pm

I have no comment ... for now. Darn site is blocked from work.

So what edition are they using? (Let me guess 4-Fail?)

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Nov 11, 2011 8:30 pm

pretty much.

Barack

Bachman

Perry

Romney

Cain

Paul

Santorum

Gingrich

Post by **fbmf** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:33 am

Psychic Robot wrote: also dan savage needs to collapse from AIDS asap

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
This is the third time I have warned you about wishing death on someone. Say good night, Gracie.
[/The Great Fence Builder Speaks]

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:57 am

Doom · Post by **Doom** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:24 am

Prak_Anima wrote:
Ah, I misremembered. But yes, it'd be funnier if it weren't so heavy handed on the republi-hate, and more even across the board. Obama's flaws basically boil down to "might kill innocents" and "can't please them nasty, evil republicans."

It's hard not to be heavy on the republi-hate, most of the characters are republicans (every word underlined in Hayek's book...lol).

That said, the "j/k, relax" under Obama's God and the IQ of 18 do seem to imply there's a bit of pandering to the democrat side.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:27 pm

I'm willing to give the bias a pass given that the Compromise and Drone Strike skills are fairly biting.

Blicero · Post by **Blicero** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 7:55 pm

Honestly, Ron Paul's sheet is also fairly low on criticism. It's not particularly positive, but it's still not a bunch of outright attacks.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 8:14 pm

I just realized an acquaintance looks like a young Newt Gingrich.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:56 pm

It's a bit unique that it opted not to take any gold standard pot shots.

K · Post by K » Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:07 pm

I don't think it's biased.

I mean, Obama is a higher-level character with better stats, but he's still painted as a murderer and someone who rolls-over against his opponents for no reason.

All in all, I'd put it in the "shitty satire" rather than "partisan satire" category.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:50 pm

Maxus wrote:

I second the emoticon.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 5:42 am

K wrote:\rolls-over against his opponents for no reason.

This, really. The weirdest thing has been watching him absolutely refuse to have any meetings at all with republicans (though to be fair, he doesn't talk with anyone), insist that he is constantly negotiating with republicans, then make crazy compromises that not even republicans actually want.

It's literally the worst combination, and it's utterly baffling.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:04 am

fectin wrote:The weirdest thing has been watching him absolutely refuse to have any meetings at all with republicans

What.

January 2009, January 2010, November 2010, June 2011.

Seriously just a few results from a Google search. I don't know what you're smoking, but could you maybe send me a kilo?

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:20 pm

From your first link:

"But let no one be mistaken that this bill is the result of bipartisan negotiations. While Republicans were courteously consulted at the member and staff level, we were never at the negotiating table," Sen. Charles Grassley said in a statement earlier in the day.
Grassley called the legislation "a deal made between the Democratic Leadership and the Obama administration. No Republican ideas need apply."

Didn't bother to look any farther. Read your own links.