New Florida polls show big swing for Newt - Purely as a political junkie, I'm happy to see the race keep going. It's like finding out that the Superbowl will be followed by another round of playoffs.
Croatian voters back bid to join EU - Despite the EU's problems, I guess it still does a lot of positive things for the postcommunist world.
CRPG Addict - If anyone here is an old school RPG nerd, you will probably love this blog. He just ended it, but, until recently, he was playing through every PCRPG starting back in the early 80's. Neat.
Sorry, this is my first post. I'm getting used to it. Sorry they're mostly political. Pretty much all I follow is political and video game news. I'll try to adjust my posting habits based on any feedback you guys have.
Also, Nebu, give me a heads up if you want me to scale back on political or video game news in general or any particular aspect. I'm trying to post stuff that is broadly of interest to all, without posting anything related to your bosses or anything.
I flagged it as normal, but I wasn't sure what to flag the "level" as, as I have no idea what that means in this context. I originally flagged it as peon, then I reflagged it as undead. I think that's why it jumped to the top.. because I updated it?
Registered: 2003-03-20 Location: Irvine, CA Posts: 3630
HIGH is like something really important, it's like a sticky. Like GIVE ME MONEY. Or So and So died.
Normal should be most posts
LOW is the bottom.
Each day you need 2 posts for the news to show up. So if your post doesn't show up (bug), just take a post from earlier and set it as low and bump it. Then your new post will show up.
I see. Does it always jump to the top when updated? Or does priority also have an impact? Why did my news story post without a secondary follow-up? Is it just sort of a random bug?
Also, does the "level" matter at all? Like I said, all I changed was peon to undead, and it jumped to the top of the page despite being "normal" priority.
Registered: 2003-03-20 Location: Irvine, CA Posts: 3630
It jumps to the top when you update it unless you unclick the flag about being updated. I unclick it if I don't want it to bump.
Don't mess with the level. That's only if you want to make posts to MARINE only or Special ops only, etc. So if there's say a BETA and you want to f the lower people out of it or something.
Your news post posted probably cuz I or someone else already had put up a news post to make that 2nd post. Seems to need 2. It's not 2 per person, it's 2 total for the day.
This is kind of an interesting topic, but I think this simplifies the topic too much just like the study a few years ago that suggested the more educated you got, the more liberal you became.
Since I usually do a lot of consulting or scripting at local haunts during the Halloween season, I do get a chance to develop working relationships / friendships with kids right around the high school graduation level / college start level. It's kind of interesting to see how a lot of them go from "Mommy, daddy, give me this" to a "I need to seriously learn how to save money to pay bills and maybe get ahead in life" outlook.
Those same people really do tend to develop a wtf attitude when the government spends money like a runaway donkey.
Just now, that same attitude has elicited a very strong "WTF Obama?" attitude about how much government waste there is right now.
So do I think it's age? At least in my neck of the woods it's not, it's just pissdom at the lack of being financially responsible. I know a lot of people in my area feel Obama has to be pushed out. If WE, the people, can't spend money we don't have, why should the US Federal Government be allowed too. Why should we let people like Harry Reid stay in office believing "We shouldn't have to have a budget"?
I think this trend goes further then party lines honesty ---- or I'd like to think it does.
The article `Do People Become More Conservative as They Age?` is a flaming, blathering piece of liberal propaganda disguised as a legitimate study. Emily Sohn ties tolerance and being politically liberal together, just as she ties intolerance and being politically conservative together. Clearly she is biased, as are her sources she interviewed. I guess because I favor low taxation, individualism, the sanctity of life, and traditional marriage, I am therefore `intollerant`. Meanwhile, in our backwards would, the liberal left shows gross intolerance and hatred towards the tiniest and most defenseless in our world -- babies -- to the tune of 50 million since Roe v. Wade. It was Republicans/Conservatives who lead the fight FOR civil rights, while Democrats fought against it for decades. It was Conservatives who supported Lincoln the great emancipator. It is conservatism that values each individual equally from life to death, and allows each individual to make of their life what their talents may allow regardless of race, religion, creed, or nationality. But it is the liberal that sees EVERYTHING through the prism of sex, race, and class, pitting the employee against the manager/owner and the minority against the majority.
Aggie, I do think you're right that the original studies talk about tolerance, not liberalness. However, past that point, you're just right out there. It was liberal and moderate Democrats and Republicans who fought against conservative Democrats and Republicans to pass civil rights legislation. Eisenhower, for example, hated McCarthy, appointed a few liberals to the Supreme Court, and built the federal highway system. In opposition were conservatives like then Democrat Strom Thurmond, who filibustered the 1957 Civil Rights Act for a record period of time in order to stop it from passing.
Lincoln was also hardly a conservative either for the time or in the present. He favored high tariffs, more government influence in the economy, federal over states' rights (to say the least!), and a federally funded railroad system (see Eisenhower highway system). He also, since his young days, supported a central bank, and he issued a fiat currency during his term (to fight for the war).
wasn't it LBJ that signed the civil rights act and then said "i think i just lost the south for the democrats for a generation"
value each life? abortion bad, dropping bombs on civilians in other countries is ok collateral damage.
and when you say you value traditional marriage, what you mean to say is gays can't get married, that is exactly intolerant as saying blacks can drink from a fountain, but just not the white folks fountain
This is the mindset of the liberal - comparing the plight of blacks in the civil rights era to the attempt by the radical gay agenda to completely re-shape what the traditional family is. It is not the same as saying blacks cant drink from a fountain. Spare me the ridiculous comparison. Gays are not being strung up in trees or having their "churches" or other gathering points firebombed or being made to ride in the back of the bus. Marriage is for a man and a woman. That is the natural order. If gay was the natural order, gays could procreate. It is not.
you're right, gays aren't being strung up in trees, they're being draged by trucks down the street by rednecks, they are being beaten and bullied and told they are unnatural
also if you think no gay gathering places have ever been the target of attacks, i guess i just shake my head at that
separation of church and state, as far as the state is concerned marriage is a contract between 2 people for the purpose of tax filings, churches shouldn't be told who can and can not get married
