Wrath of Dagon

Making anything new is hard, even harder if creativity is required.

First I could care less. Second the meaning of the law is quite clear when read in context.

What about all the other things we vote on? California is actually a fairly evenly split state when it comes to political parties. Just look at the governor, and the recent Prop 8 victory was about as right wing conservative christian as you can get. You can't be serious. California is dominated by Democrats, look up your congressional delegation. Even the governor is a liberal. May be CA isn't as liberal as you'd like, but it's the bluest of blue states. Gay marriage hasn't succeeded in any state's referendum so far as I know, so that tells you nothing. That's an internal state matter, it shouldn't affect us. And it's not like all of CA actually has SF values. Austin is very liberal btw.

A liberal retard says so, so it must be true.

That's what needs to happen.

Most of my favorite games are already dead, so there's not much left to lose.

Well yeah, look at the past 5 or so presedential elections, that's 20 years.

Apparently due to all the technical difficulties they were having, a lot of the content had to be cut/changed, or left in a threadbare state, resulting in that effect. The fact that the game had such a linear structure and the dialogs were designed to be skippable didn't help either.

In what way? I hope you don't mean financially, as a lot of "blue states" often contribute more federal money than they receive. As the most relevant example, California generally receives less per capita than it pays per capita. http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/cffr-08.pdf http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html West Virginia and New Mexico are notable "blue" exceptions. Of course, NM and WV are ranked 37th/36th in population as opposed to California, which is 1st by a large margin. There are also several high-population "red" states, like Texas, that federally give more than they receive per capita. I don't think either "side" is holding the others back. Of course this also assumes that you can clearly divide red/blue, which you can't. My home state, Wisconsin, had a Republican governor for a long, long time -- but continued to send Democrat representatives to Congress and vote for Democrat presidential candidates. Texas has had an enormous number of Democrat governors -- of most notable recent interest, Ann Richards. You'd be better off trying to split urban/rural, but even that doesn't make much sense. I meant economically, through harmful Federal legislation, not Federal government subsidies, which don't make sense since a portion of them just goes to the Federal bureaucrats and also are counter productive being subsidies. For example, the Blue super state could have government run healthcare, while the Red super state would not. So I also meant holding each other back politically from where each wants to go. As far as Texas, yes it used to be yellow dog Democrat, but those days are long gone. I don't think trying to split urban from suburban/rural would work at all, I think you have to work at the granularity of states. As for the voting record, it doesn't matter, you'd have a referendum in each state to decide which super state to join, it being understood one would be more liberal and the other more conservative.

I believe the warrantless wiretapping program has already been revised anyway, so now they do have to get a warrant.

Habeas Corpus has not been suspended. Prisoners of war never had Habeas Corpus. Warrantless wiretapping was only used for foreign phone calls and only to suspected terrorists so far as I know. Certainly I haven't seen any of my civil liberties resticted.

Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? I haven't noticed any loss in civil liberties since 9/11.

Pandemic made some really good games in the past, but everything they've been doing lately bombed.

Even a literacy test is illegal in the US.

When US was set up, the idea was not to have any political parties and have candidates run for office strictly as individuals. As soon as that was put into operation, everyone realized what an impractical idea that was, so idea of party identification simply has to be accepted as an inevitable fact. The country at this point is closely split between liberals and conservatives which also follows geographical lines, which is extremely frustrating to both sides. I'm merely proposing a solution which should make everyone happy.

I mean, that you suggest states which are Red should stay Red, presumably. Meaning no more elections in case the Blues get in. No, you stay in the Red superstate, you still have elections as normal. I suppose every 10 years or so you could have a referendum if you want to switch superstates. It's a win-win. As far as what Chris Rock said, I agree to an extent, you have to judge an issue objectively on its merits, but most of the time the evidence is not so clear cut and a lot of predictive assumptions are made, and that's where you have to rely more on ideology as a guide.

You can progress all you want in your blue state, and leave us the **** alone.

Why no elections? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

We'd be the most successful, productive "country" in the world, I mean even more so than now.

I think the Blue states are really holding us back. I propose we form a Blue super state and a Red super state. Each would have its own congress, supreme court, and governor. There would still be a common president, but he would only deal with defense and foreign policy matters. This would solve a lot of political problems we're encountering, as well as let the Red states reach their full potential.

You mean peachy place Wikipedia made it out to be. They've started as one of the poorest countries of the world, and are improving rapidly, growing faster than even the Asian countries. What else do you want? You think you can just wave a magic wand and make everything great overnight? As far as your other theories, do you have any historical evidence to back them up? OK, your town is a virtual ghost town, but what's the overall rate of unemployment in your country? You think no towns have ever disappeared before? Conditions change, and everyone has to adapt, it's always been that way and always will be.

People will do immoral things unless the government enforces the laws against those things, that's just how it is. I'm not defending anyone who does immoral things, least of all corporations. Laying off people isn't immoral though, that's just part of running a business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botswana You were saying?

When I came to the US in 1976 all was gloom and doom also, and a man probably even more pathetic than Obama became president. A few years after that we began a 30 year period of uprecedented success and prosperity. Something to think about.

Western corporations moving to third world countries have vastly improved the standard of living there. Would you rather all those people were unemployed and/or starving? As far as pollution, etc, that's the result of corrupt governments in those countries, governments which will probably improve once the higher living standard allows more education and greater sense of social responsibilty.