Make sure you have enough Stamina to move your candidate When I start a new game, I hit C to highlight my candidate. My stamina is 13 out of 13. I try dragging with either my left or my right mouse to California, and nothing happens. I highlight Californi
Darrell, once you have done the Stardock Central download, go to the software tabm and there is a little checkbox at the bottom of the page that you need to ceck to include betas.
OK, what is the trick to moving your candidate. The first I went to move him, it worked, and after that, I could never get it again. (In any case, this mechanism is counter intuitive.)
I'm looking forward to taking it for a spin!
the US strategy has been in its own self interest overall but its self interest has always been of benefit to the others. The word "always" raises my eyebrows, and I suspect those of some Latin American citizens as well. The US has done pretty well by the rest of the world more of the time than not, but we also
You really can't compare sport stadiums and government assistance. I could not disagree more. Business conservatives hate the comparison because they take the rather arrogant view that what is good for them is good for everyone. Truth be told, the same could be said for government assistance to the nee
Don, I don't follow your example with sports stadiums. I'm uncertain as to what you are questioning. A sports team is a business. Why should my tax money go to support it, by building a new stadium, so that this company can improve its profits? If, like the city of Green Bay, the team is owned by the p
I have two very opposite reactions to your piece. First of all, I agree with your narrow point that the term "disability" has gotten out of hand. One of the achievements of modern times has been increased sensitivity towards (and utilization of) those with major disabilities. However, the broad consensus to move in this direction was never intended to include many of the things now enshrined. A simple example: parents of a student who misbe
Who cares? Nobody cared when Kerry was getting money from a Communist general. ?? How can you not care? You make it seem like a simple contest as to who has more to be ashamed of, and as long as your guy is less shameful, no cause to worry. For America's sake I'd like to see one of the ma
"That is why they shouldn't be tossed questions, only verified facts." Since almost nothing is truly a verified fact, that would mean the public hears almost nothing. Your way leads to disaster (assuming you want popular control of government.) For years I have watched the same dynamic in local education. The school board (much like the national public) received little information until after the admistrative professionals have sift
Baker Street, I disagree. Very little of what is reported (and even less of what is important) is fact. Obviously, many of the president's statements about WMD were not factual, but they certainly needed to be reported. Same with budget projections, or statements about trade or environmental policy. You have the metaphor crossed up. It is a jury that should be severely restr
Well, to take one story as an example: Osama Bin Laden' supposed capture. I see two possibilities either he really was captured, OR, an erroneous report, complete with pictures, appeared in a major foreign country, implying either a conspiracy to mislead or incompetence beyond belief... It is my view that either of those possibilities is major news. Same with the supposed capture of Saddam Hussein by the Kurds. The two most likely possibili
Having said that, the US does not *NEED* the rest of the world - we can be self-sufficient in almost everything (there are some so-called "strategic" minerals that the US does not have in quantity). But the US could IF NECESSARY get away with a bare minimum of trade wtih the rest of the world I honestly believe
Actually, I think that history would show far more public awareness of issues in the past. If you listen to FDR's fireside chats, one of the things that seems most dated about them is the depth of the discussion. A similar speech today would not be understood by the majority of the people. Or consider the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Very ordinary citizens must have had quite a wide knowledge of current affairs to understand these.
For many years, I have been concerned that America's democratic system is dying, due to the nature of the news the vast majority of citizens base their voting on. Television news is selected, above all, for its entertainment value, which usually boils down to the availablity of compelling footage. This certainly limits the topics of discussion, as well as being ripe for exploitation by those in a position to offer/withhold the pictures. In f
BakerStreet: Sorry if I was too flip with my answer. However, I think you are on dangerous ground when you find opposition to be suspect in the area of patriotism because it is political. That is how our goverment system should work. When a segment of the population believes something, someone will try to get elected by espousing that point of view. Win or lose, the public has spoken. To call a point of view unpatriotic because it is politi
Personally, I have no problem at all with Bush using 9-11 images. The message is clear -- he is running on his anti-terror record, and he considers this to be the greatest concern of America at this point. In the era of television, communication is mostly by visual symbol, and this one is clear and fair, at least in my book. It is now up to America to ask questions of this. Looking back from this vantage point, has terrorism been well handl
The reason many of them are being called unpatriotic is because 99% of their complaints about national security, the war on terrorism, and the Patriot act are not in the national interest, but jabs made solely for politcal effect. I'm sorry, but derailing national security efforts in the interests of a political campaig
What conservatives take issue with is inaction. No, that is an entirely different argument. I find it hard to believe that you are unfamiliar with conservatives' questioning of liberals' patriotism, particularly in matters of national security. I am not debating the merits of liberal and cons
The United States is a wonderful country. However, this statement does not mean that we should not criticize. In my mind, developing (and stating) an informed opinion is one of the best ways to show one's patriotism in a republic. The trouble is that, some conservatives seem to have a double standard about criticism. To hear them, it was patriotic to criticize Bill Clinton and our part in Kosovo, it is patriotic to criticize taxes,
Truly, the private school-public school issue is worthy of a book length treatment. However, just a few things to keep in mind: 1) A high portion of the total money in education is spent on hiring staff. Public schools pay most teachers a good middle class wage with good middle class benefits, and private schools usually do not. It is easy to demagogue this issue by attacking the wages of the most senior teachers in the higher paying school
Thanks, stevendedalus
Following World War II, our country entered an era of enormous upswelling of wealth. For an enormous portion of the American population, it was almost enevitible that each generation would live substantially better than the previous generation. No one seems to talk about the underlying reasons for this. Earlier in the century, our manufacturing and transportation had developed to the point that promoting increased consumption became the key t
To paraphrase the adage, when the law is on your side, you argue the law. When the facts are on your side, you argue the facts. The Constitution is largely on your side, so that is what you are agruing. But the de facto situation is that the sitting president, given his party's control of congress, has controlled the country over the past 2-4 years, so that is what I am arguing. We all know that many things in the Constitution are not exact
Back to the orginal question -- the Democratic candidates are debating President Bush because he is the leader of the party that controls not only the presidency but both houses of Congress, thus holding control not only over the the results but even over what can reach the floor for a vote. For better or worse, health care, the economy, foreign policy, etc. have been in the hands of the Republicans for the past two years, if not the past four. Like
JoeUser Forums