Calax

Feeling a bit like a traitor. Long story involving lots of drama at work... but the basics are a 17 year old girl is kind of a flirt, and had a bit of a reputation for being "bad". She hits on a 24 year old maintenance guy, and he responds, they basically snuggle for one day (according to them both) but he gets a bit to... sexual harassment for her (dirty texts and "cheney pics"). She tells him to stop, it doesn't... she complains to the other managers (the ones higher than me) and it finally stops, but the entire store turns against her. She quit and is trying to talk to corp about a hostile work environment and being harassed... and I'm helping her. I donno... There was fault on both sides of the issue, but it just feels like I shouldn't be helping her send this thing because it's being a "traitor" to my place of work and a couple of the guys I hang out with.

The company will go up, but according to cnn, the brands will all be up for grabs. So Twinkies may still be around, but they'll be made by Frito-Lay or whoever.

The combat scenarios in GTA IV are simple enough when the system works correctly... when it works correctly. The frustration of the game stems from getting killed due to the system going wonky, which happens far more often than is reasonable. For example when going into cover your character suddenly turns around on his own facing the opposite direction you just were because... because? Running toward a target then stopping to take a shot at them when your character decides to turn 180 all on his own and you get sprayed in the back. Going into cover and the character just freaks out all on his own rapidly turning back and forth all on his own like he's on crack or something then wanders out into the open all on his own and gets mowed down. I hate how the view rotates when you get to the edge of cover. I'll have my crosshairs on a target ready to mow them down, then I get to the edge of cover and the view rotates 45 degrees on its own and I have to adjust my aim, meanwhile I'm getting shot at. I could keep going. What's worse is there is no checkpoint system in the game so you have to start from the very beginning when you die, and not just at the beginning of the fire fight, you have to do all the driving to get there too. On top of that, many of the later missions are like a half hour long or longer so you have to do a huge chunk of game over when you get killed because the game went wacky. Maybe the game didn't have these issues in the 360 version? Edit: Sorry for double post but I could no longer edit the previous post. Yeah, that sounds like a pc only issue. Probably with your mouse or controller (had that happen once upon a time with COD).

Jehuty? I don't think a machine created in orbit over Jupiter is available for order.

Actually? Those are the last two missions in the game, well there's two for each choice. Once you complete those two missions and see the fallout, it just drops you at the Statue of Liberty and says "You're in free roam now". I don't know if they changed the controls/combat mechanics in the PC version, but in the consoles it was ridiculously easy unless they set up a situation where you got attacked from three directions. Just pull up the auto-target, raise the aim a tiny bit and blam, headshot. The biggest slip up with GTAIV was just how SERIOUS it was. You've got Niko trying to work his way up the ladder (but always being the putz that's betrayed and "the muscle") while dealing with his "issues". And their side quests weren't much better (with one being about a teen who visits Liberty City and ends up as a hooker before Niko puts her on a bus home). The other major thing was just that whole "WE MADE MINIGAMES AND A DRUNKEN ENGINE DAMNIT! YOU WILL USE THEM" relationship garbage with everyone you know. Honestly? Ballad of Gay Tony was more what I was expecting from the story. Not entirely over the top but just so built around humor and having a good time, rather than trying to be something that yanks at your emotions.

Desert Bus has Begun!

Actually, primaries are the antethesis of a proper democracy. You're supposed to be able to choose whomever you desire, not "this person is part of my party/the party I like the most". The point I made in one of my poly sci classes that froze up the PHD was that in the chinese one party system, you get more of a choice between viewpoints than in the current two party election scheme. Why? Becuase when you get right down to it, there's ultimately very little difference overall between the parties, while under a single party, the different candidates (more than 2) each can take a more varied approach to their political agenda.

Well, a lot of them used to. Before religious issues were really pushed all that heavily in national politics, there was a creature in Washington known as the "Southern Democrat." They caucused with the Dems because no true son of Dixie was going to join the party of Lincoln and Grant, but they functioned essentially as a centrist 3rd party, mostly positioned between the Democrats from the rest of the country (like the Kennedys) and the GOP. The Republicans managed to pry these folks away from the party of their granddaddies by emphasizing social issues-- first Civil Rights, then religious issues like school prayer and abortion. But, more likely, they'll just vote less. The mobilization of evangelicals as a political force is a fairly recent phenomenon. Before the GOP started working hard to reach that audience, they didn't vote at particularly high rates. If someone has a staunch "I'll never vote for a candidate who allows abortions to happen in this country" position, and if neither of the major parties put forth a candidate that speaks to their particular concerns, that kind of voter might prefer to disengage from national politics. However the issue that turned up in this most recent election is that their particular concerns and this strategy have started to harm the party and it's public image.

The party can choose to distance themselves from those candidates, which they didn't seem to (but they didn't draw them closer at the same time). King is still in office, but all of the others were rejected.

You have summarized succinctly the issues I have with the Republican party and what they need to do to change in order to win the necessary demographics, nice one I read stuff like that all the time, but what you have to understand is that any party is a coalition. Take away one piece of a coalition, and all you have is a minority party. Evangelicals are 27% of the electorate, take them away and there's no Republican party, not that it matters as it's dead on the national level anyway. Btw, the 80's may have some surface similarities to now, but that's all it is. For one thing the number of swing states is vastly smaller now, the country is pretty much locked in and moving in only one direction. And the number of religious folk in the US is rapidly shrinking. Yes, Political parties are coalitions, but the issue is that the coalition that the Republicans are playing Umbrella for is just NOT going to have as much power as they want... and their pandering to the extreme of their party hurts them significantly (given the majority of people wouldn't cheer for "LET EM DIE!" in relation to a poor person not having health care). If they want to have a better showing at the polls they need to get away from topics that alienate large demographics (rape, trans-vaginal ultrasounds, rape, "let em die") and start finding a way to get those votes back.

Basically, Austin Texas wants to become it's own city, like DC, and no longer a part of Texas. In the same way Texas is tossing out the petition to no longer be part of the union.

*Insert Suikoden V praise here*

Not really. I've only just started drinking and I've noticed it has two purposes. Getting buzzed and being more social... but you do NOT go overboard Getting completely stonking drunk to forget about something that's happened or just to escape from life for a night or two.

ewwwwwwwwwwww

Beware vodka soaked gummi-bears. They won't even touch your bloodstream until you've given up on them getting you drunk and have started hitting the beer.

Under this logic, most of the states don't, particularly hawaii, because of how news does projections and campaigns operate via those projections

Yes. And no... more often it's more "Do this extra thing during the mission" and less "Dive bomb him!" (so for a hunting mission, you'd get "kill this many creatures" as your main objective, and as your secondaries it might be "use traps on 2, air kill 2, and shoot one". In more of the missions it's more "Don't get detected" or "Rescue three people". And I think enterix experience kind of encapsulates the entire game. Stealth is a lot harder to pull off, so you just end up being much more open about everything and slaughtering your way through everyone.

That's why I said that it would take one hell of a spark. And if the whole session thing takes off with signatures like some seem to think it will, I believe that there will be at least a few politicians who back it (I mean look at the discussions on Rape that were happening). The major thing that'd differentiate a civil war now, vs the previous one would probably be that previously, it was geographical. If you were in the south, you were a Confederate. If you were in the North, you were a Union. Now it'll be more like an insurgancy than anything... which will be messy

Yes, and no. Right now many of the more progressive social issues (Womens reproductive rights, health care, social security etc) are becoming very divisive within the nation. Partly because of media influence, but partly because of the gaming of politics. The "Red" states are starting to feel like they're loosing their political power, and thus are getting worried. They're also known to glorify the Confederacy (which is stupid overall), and the most radical (and thus the most out and out zealots) have been rumbling about "THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN" for decades. Personally, I can see a 2nd civil war happening, but it'd take one HELL of a spark to get it going.

I think, sir, the point that you fail to factor in, is that if you look at how the budgets of the states that are taking more money vs giving it, you'd find that the Federal dollars they're receiving are closing their budget gap. Meanwhile the states that are having the money taken are just widening their deficit that they need to close... somehow. Iowa has a small deficit because of just how much money is being poured into the corn industry. California is losing money because they're taxed, but have so few federal programs that benefit them (and a messed up initiative system that doesn't allow them to adjust how they spend their money... and their property taxes are odd) they end up paying out more, and having to work from their own pocket for things like education. An actual intelligent post. Thanks for that and I agree with this. It also partly invalidates your previous argument that Democratic states are mismanaged because of their OBVIOUS budget and deficit issues.

I think, sir, the point that you fail to factor in, is that if you look at how the budgets of the states that are taking more money vs giving it, you'd find that the Federal dollars they're receiving are closing their budget gap. Meanwhile the states that are having the money taken are just widening their deficit that they need to close... somehow. Iowa has a small deficit because of just how much money is being poured into the corn industry. California is losing money because they're taxed, but have so few federal programs that benefit them (and a messed up initiative system that doesn't allow them to adjust how they spend their money... and their property taxes are odd) they end up paying out more, and having to work from their own pocket for things like education.

I'm pretty sure there's more mexicans with guns in Texas than "THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN" whites with guns. And yeah, people are still finding out about it right now, but to actually secede would end up making their lives miserable because they wouldn't have the federal backup, or trade breaks that they get now.

I think when the Daily show went to the RNC, they found that most of the "We should run this nation like a business" people were from states that recieved the most money from the Feds, and thus were "Failed businesses" that should be cut/sold. Also, didn't Lincoln declare that secession, at least in the case of 1866, was illegal? And WoD, 50k is less than a municipal district, much less an actual state's will.

Well of course you would say that considering everyone is an Eldar alt. >_> We're all Hades Alt you FOOL!

WoD, GD throws his money into precious metals. My question is how exactly is Obama just going to out and out tank the economy? Romney wanted to spend at least as much money as we are now (with an increased military budget added on, natch), but was also suggesting tax breaks be increased (with the nebulous "loopholes" being used to close the gap). Obama is intending to (from his speeches) drop military spending, up social spending (making the government an employer), and try to stabilize and regulate wallstreet to SOME degree. One thing my dad pointed out to me as I talked to him earlier, was that this is the time when not only does the GOVERNMENT look at it's yearly budget, but the Industries do too. And one of the reasons for all the defense industry jobs going poof is because the corps' that make up that segment say "Well, crap, guess Obama isn't spending another billion extra on us" and tightening their belts to get around that.