Heroic Halfwit

1. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party- The act of joining a group that has as its central political platform abolishing the Constitution of the United States of America and replacing it with a Communist state is different than entertaining the unexpressed thought in one's mind that perhaps that would be a good idea. For the same reason, I can think in quite a bit of detail precisely how I might go about murdering someone, I could plan it out to the nth degree, but until I take some overt act I am still not guilty of any crime. Many of the people, though not all particularly during the McCarthy era, were asked that question because those people were also required to swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is simply illogical to believe that a person can be sincere at both defending and abolishing the same thing. 2. Excluding Muslims on the basis of being oh holding Muslim beliefs. This is not an actual legal position. Please find me the regulation, statute, executive order or whatever that proposes to exclude persons from the United States for holding Muslim beliefs in the privacy of their own mind. One of the fundamental freedoms in the United States is the ability to hold opposing (and in the opinion of those opposed stupid, wrong, false, irrational, etc. views). I am not myself a racist, but I have a right to be a racist and I have the right to discriminate on race in a vast number of things, except those covered specifically by applicable laws, such as the Civil Rights Act. So I could choose to express my racist beliefs by not having any white friends, not dating white women, refusing to watch movies and television that prominently feature white actors, etc. By contrast, I could not legally express my racism by refusing to employ someone on the basis of race, or refuse to rent out a property to a person on the basis of race. 3. Your belief in 3-armed aliens bent on world domination will not, and legally cannot, get you "locked up" for your own good, unless and until it can be demonstrated that as a consequence of a disease that manifests in part with that belief that you at that moment present an imminent threat to yourself or the public. 4. You are free to question whatever you like, in the privacy of your own mind. You can, in the US, in most circumstances even express that doubt about another's beliefs. Some expression of your doubt may result in granting the other party the right to slug you, for example if you expressed doubts about the legitimacy of my birth, then in the State of Georgia I would be within my rights to slug you for your outrageous behavior. Similarly, I could sue you for slander if you spoke it, or libel if you published it. But in any event, I do not believe that in the US you are only entitled to hold "sincere beliefs." I assert that you are free to think any thought that comes into your mind regardless of how irrational, stupid, crazy, or offensive others might think it to be. If you can find a single statute, case, regulation, etc. that contradicts that position in the United States, then I will pledge my legally services pro bono to getting that law voided and declared Unconstitutional.

Sir Thomas More was executed for a failure to speak, not for anything that he thought. Similarly, there were no doubt many people who were not executed because they spoke what the king wished to hear rather than honestly disclose what they believed in their heads. Sir Thomas More's execution was simple tyranny and rightfully condemned by history. Your assertion that speech is the same as thought, however, is totally incorrect. We have yet, though for how much longer who knows, to actually prosecute someone for their thoughts, only their actions or their failure to act when there is a legal duty to act. As far as your assertion about me personally, know that I did at great expense escape a religious cult and I am intimately failure with brainwashing and indoctrination. It cost me my entire family to leave that cult. You don't know me. Your comment on brainwashing is simply irrelevant to a discussion of whether there are "unfettered rights" to think one's own thoughts. Sir Thomas More's tragic execution is similarly irrelevant as he was executed for his refusal speak rather than for the content of his mind. The following are excerpts from the Nazi Party's political platform. The Program of the German Workers’ Party is a program for our time. We therefore demand: 7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich. ..... 9. All German Citizens must have equal rights and duties. 10. It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good. Breaking the Servitude of Interest. 11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort. 12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits. 13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts). 14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises. 15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes. 16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities. 17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land. 18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race. 19. We demand the replacement of Roman Law, which serves a materialistic World Order, by German Law. 20. In order to make higher education – and thereby entry into leading positions – available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latters’ position or occupation. 21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievements of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people. 23. We demand laws to fight against deliberate political lies and their dissemination by the press. In order to make it possible to create a German press, we demand: a) all editors and editorial employees of newspapers appearing in the German language must be German by race; non-German newspapers require express permission from the State for their publication. They may not be printed in the German language; c) any financial participation in a German newspaper or influence on such a paper is to be forbidden by law to non-Germans and the penalty for any breach of this law will be the closing of the newspaper in question, as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-Germans involved. Newspapers which violate the public interest are to be banned. We demand laws against trends in art and literature which have a destructive effect on our national life, and the suppression of performances that offend against the above requirements. 24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the Germanic race. 25. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich. Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states. The Party leadership promises to take an uncompromising stand, at the cost of their own lives if need be, on the enforcement of the above points. Munich, Germany February 24, 1920. Are these not socialist positions? Are socialist in favor of profits from the wealthy propertied classes? against public education, healthcare, old age pensions? Are they against any limitation on war profiteering? Are socialists in favor of the "Materialisitc World Order?" Since when have socialists been violently opposed to the nationalization of private enterprise? Be honest. While Nazis may fairly be described as fascists, they are also fairly described as socialists. As to the assertion that the left is not socialist, I would beg to differ. Bernie Sanders has regularly self identified as a "Democratic Socialist" and he was very nearly the presidential candidate for the Democrats. Many believe that Bernie Sanders defeat in the primary may have significantly contributed to Donald Trump's victory in so far as it is alleged that some of those Sanders supporters either did not cast a ballot or cast "protest ballots" for persons other than Hillary Rodham-Clinton?

False. And I shall prove it. I have an absolute right to believe anything within my own mind. Q.E.D. Second, the NRA has never advocated for completely unregulated, unrestricted private gun possession or use. If I'm wrong, please provide me with the quote and I'll cancel my membership.

Yeah, this factually inaccurate and knowingly so. I'll go back to the Archive to check the Constitution, but I'm pretty sure the NRA isn't listed there. Second, the NRA has long advocated for responsible gun ownership, invests a great deal of time and energy in providing firearms safety training all across the country. You may dislike the NRA or the very idea that people should be able to defend themselves or perhaps you are offended that other people should hold an opinion that doesn't mirror your own, but lying is not an honorable way to attempt to advance your political agenda. Though I much prefer it to the tactics of terrorist groups like Antifa. So carry on.

The Nazi Party was socialist. So are many of the people on the left. The Nazi Party believed in the use of violence to perpetuate their political agenda despite being in the minority, so do the "counter protestors." Both the Nazi Party and some of the counter protestors have called for confiscating the property of law abiding citizens on the basis of subject characteristics included in the Civil Rights Act such as some of the groups self identified as "Black Lives Matter." Of course, you seem to imply that anyone supporting Trump is somehow a Nazi, which is odd since Nazis are socialists and most socialists are on the political left. I denounce any and all non-state actors who use violence or the threat of violence to advance a political agenda. We could quibble, but that is the essence of the definition of a terrorist group. How many on the left have advocated for "direct action" including the destruction of property even violence? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/?utm_term=.ef81bfbdf2e8 Have we gone so crazy that we can't all agree that basic civility is required for a functioning society and that running around in masks assaulting people and committing arson is just out of bounds?

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." This seems to violate both. As to Due Process, the seizing of the private property of a person occurs prior to that person even having notice that such a seizure was threatened, then that person has to go down to the court house to obtain an singular form to "request" a court hearing? The only seeming justification for this kind of heavy handed freedom stomp is the protection of innocent life, but we have that in all 50 states. If a person can be reasonably demonstrated to be suicidal that person may be committed to a mental health treatment facility against their will for a period of time, and then are AUTOMATICALLY given a hearing to contest their commitment. If the argument is for the defense of others, then a reasonable basis should exist for the potential user of the gun (who, may not be the actual owner of the gun, so on top of everything else you are, in some cases, depriving a lawful owner of his or her property based upon the alleged potentially criminal actions of a third party) to be arrested for assault, making terroristic threats, child neglect, abuse, dependency (depending on the State). If there is no such basis for an arrest warrant or civil commitment then I respectfully submit to you that there is not a reasonable basis to believe the danger is so grave an imminent as to dispose with any semblance of Due Process. Oregon isn't a freaking warzone and private gun owning citizens are not some kind of invading army! This is simply an attempt by liberal, anti-gun, anti-freedom persons to disarm the populace.

A lot depends on your idea of dystopia. I'm sure many on both sides of the metaphorical aisle find the current state of the United States to be dystopic. Whether you are with certain groups who label themselves as Black Lives Matter who claim that there is literally an active racial genocide in the offing, or you believe that the "liberals and social scientists" are despoiling the culture and plunging it into chaos a la Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein. There are tons of Doomsdayist out there; I mean Isis is an apocalyptic group and I suspect most people would agree that the society they have created in territory formerly controlled by Syria and Iraq is significantly dystopic. There are those who believe that the developed world will simply default on its debts (or rack up so much that no one is willing to lend them money any more, like the crisis narrowly avoided in Greece) and thereby plunge the entire interconnected and dependent economic system into chaos. You don't need to do a whole lot of world building, there are a lot of current dystopic societies and many more than need just a tiny push to become so.

I'm no physicist, but seems to me I remember that sound needed a medium through which to travel? So, why not create a localized vacuum to prevent the sound wave from traveling? Or maybe I'm mistaking the old adage, "They can't hear you scream in outer space."

1. Cellular Shapeshifting -- a tough cookie. At first blush, particularly if cellular shapeshifting is rare, it would likely be treated like the early days of DNA testing. It would likely fall under the inverse of the better 9 guilty go free than one innocent be incarcerated falsely, which is, sometimes that innocent person is just gonna get screwed. That's why it's "reasonable doubt" and not "absolute certainty." In short, cellular shapeshifting would most likely be used as an attempt to impeach witness identification testimony. But good luck with that. 2. Mind control-- is pretty easy. Most crimes require a mens rea, or broadly put "criminal intent" a person who was mind controlled lacks that criminal intent and therefore cannot be guilty of any crime requiring such (which is almost all of them, except for a few financial crimes and other artefacts of bygone eras). In practice, it would like have to be asserted as an affirmative defense with the defendant carrying the burden of production to invoke the defense (then it depends on jurisdiction whether or not the State or the Defendant has the burden of persuasion, currently the several States vary quite a bit. For reference see Self Defense). 3. Telepathically gained evidence -- Absolutely inadmissible by any current standard. I cannot imagine a circumstance under which a non-voluntary telepathic intrusion would be considered anything other than an unlawful search. But then again the Bill of Rights isn't what it used to be. Any "hard evidence" gained by following leads from an unlawful telepathic "search" would be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. 4. Cosmetic shapeshift -- does not equal rape or even come close to it. Presuming the actor was not impersonating someone there is no legal difference I can see between Cosmetic shapeshift and wearing cosmetics or designer clothes. For rape to occur you have to vitiate the consent of one of the parties. There are several ways to do that: force/threat of force, intoxication, lack of ability to give consent in the first instance (for example those under the age of consent), etc. There have been attempts to prosecute people for various crimes when they engage in sexual contact knowing for example that they are HIV positive and failing to inform their partners, but I honestly don't remember if those cases ever came to anything. I am aware of no case of "rape by deception."

I'm not sure about the "w/o glasses or contact lenses" part, seems like a focus limitation on a complication/disadvantage, but... So you've got a 15 point complication/disadvantage and so far describe it as a conditional -2 penalty skill levels to ranged ocv (6 points). Thinking from effects, suppose a 'near sighted" person had 20/40 vision. So, I would double range penalties to sight perception rolls (since 20/40 means the person sees at 20 feet as clearly as "normal" people see at 40). I would also double range penalties to OCV as the target would be blurry and it would be more difficult for the shooter to determine the target's intended path and speed, etc. I might also suggest that such a person would be less able to use 0-phase sight perception rolls. Specifically, I would limit the use of 0-phase sight perception rolls to what the person could normally see clearly, for sake of argument 10 feet or about 3 meters. Now as a GM, if I ever allowed a focus limitation on a disadvantage like that, I would, by dramatic necessity, have to take the focus away. So every once and again the character will have to leave the contacts at home (eye infection, new prescription, delay in delivery, eaten by a Galactic Monster, whatever). I would also reduce the value of the complication by the inverse of the focus limitation, in this case you have an IIF (contacts) and thus I would say the Complication is only worth 7 pts. Players and GMs will argue over the proper valuation of Complications like this, but I think your current formulation is way off the mark. I'm not near sighted, but maybe someone else who is can provide some insight into how their vision interferes with their effectiveness as a super hero. Complications aren't really designed as negative powers like your -2 OCV vs. anything beyond 2 hexes. If you want a negative power, it's pretty easy to do so on the front end (don't buy combat skill levels) or the back end (often with limitations like Side Effects).

xd6 RKA, autofire 5x, fully indirect, armor piercing, no range modifier, beam, oif, incantations,limited range, decreased stun multiplier, no knockback Optional autofire skills accurate spray fire rapid autofire

1. You can effect the first part by just having the character don street clothes. If you want to given them a power that replicates "street clothes" it used to be called instant changes, but you could probably build it with Images or Shapeshift. 2. Ways other PCs could force a change back; a. Dispel multiform. (I allowed it in my campaign, but on further thought, it might not really be appropriate) b. Accidental change on the multiform character. e.g. a character who becomes possessed by a demon, gaining different abilities and even personality, when drug onto holy ground causes a forced exorcism of the demon, reverting the character to base form. Accidental Change Holy ground/exorcism. Limited power, also effected as Summon (for dispel summon). etc. c. Mind Control - simply command the multiform character to use the multiform power to adopt the chosen form. There are probably others but those are the ones that come to mind.

What do you want it to be? It seems to me that you could build it either way perhaps through the use of compound limitations or as massey suggests different iterations of the multiform across forms. It is a good question, made more complicated by "disposable foci." Suppose instead of a magic ring that transformed you into Shazam!, you take Dr. Jekyll's formula. The focus is consumed to effectuate the change and the change in form persists despite the destruction of the focus. If Dr. Jekyll wishes to transform again (after he reverts that is) he will once again have to concoct and take the formula. In such circumstances, to me, it makes more sense to interpret the focus limitation as a limitation on the activation of the power. Thus, if across forms the multiform is built with the focus limitation, the character would be stuck in whatever form he/she/it was in at the time the focus was no longer available and would remain so until the focus is retrieved. Unless, of course, there were "accidental changes" complications or other limitations that cause an involuntary reversion. Regardless of such accidental change issues, the character would not be able to voluntarily activate the power without the focus.

Simply false. Yes, it is not profitable for them because risk pools are smaller than designed, and because constant chatter about repealing Obamacare drastically increases uncertainty. Uncertainty is a BFD in the insurance industry, for obvious reasons. Insurance is the business of uncertainty. The you simply could not have had a sufficiently large enough risk pool to deliver on the Affordable Care Act's promises. There are simply not nearly enough healthy people who would also avoid the moral hazard associated with purchasing a several thousand dollar a year asset and refrain from using it. It's funny that the Republicans have been promising to repeal Obamacare for eight full orbits but still don't have a plan. I'd be perfectly willing to give them another two years or four years to try and come up with one though. It's funny you jump to "a Plan" that doesn't exist. I merely say that the statements you make about the dire predictions of the "Republican Care" are premature as there is in fact no plan. Never judge a deal by preliminary negotiations. Thought everyone knew that.

Insurers were pulling out of the state and federal exchanges while Obama was still in office so.... Also inconvenient fact, the Affordable Care Act, in the aggregate did nothing to slow the increase in premiums. In fact, the rate of increase in global premiums increased. So I reject your speculation that Obamacare is failing because "it's those darn Republicans!" Insurance companies are leaving the exchanges because it is not profitable for them. As there is no current Republican plan, but rather 1 plan proposed by the House and an as yet to be fully negotiated plan from the Senate, it is too early to make any definitive statements on "Republican Care" seeing as it doesn't exist yet.