The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Because the country as a whole would suffer if the people of New Orleans decided to sack it in and move to Omaha or something?
Why would it suffer? What's wrong with Omaha?
Not understanding the federal thing isn't important. The right and wise principle is that you make decisions at the most local level practical.
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Camile didn't hit New Orleans, so once again, you are wrong. Katrina, at it's peak, was the 4th strongest recorded Atlantic storm in history.
By "this area" I meant the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and Mississippi, the area that took the brunt of this storm. Camille hit the same area in '69 and was definitely stronger.
Originally posted by DanS
All of those things might be true, but that doesn't really answer to whether it is wise to situate a city where New Orleans is situated. If as a net proposition they deem it wise, then the good citizens of New Orleans should find it necessary to spend the money to make sure that the city doesn't sink into the sea.
I am rather more disinterested in the proposition as a personal matter you see. The good people of New Orleans (my family included) should be able to make the proper decisions without my permission.
Somehow I think that Stalin would have a really good laugh reading this, oh, and yes, he would have moved the city - why waste resources.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
Originally posted by Apocalypse
It's pretty much a non-argument when you have many mission trips to South America to convert Catholics. Then they go around and accuse Catholics of not being evangelical enough because they don't send many missions to South America, even though there are large Catholic evangelical efforts in places like Southeast Asia and Africa.
I wonder if the Baptists (et al) realize that South America is like 95%+ Catholic. I'd hope they weren't evangelizing there!
Oh, and I see DanS is once again being a total tool.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Apparently, once you start living off the federal government teat, the federal government is the only place to make decisions like this. It didn't take long for you to become a hopeless bureaucrat, Imran. Next thing you know, you'll become a card-carrying democrat.
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
Around 1984 there was a flood around where I lived and people all along the river were wiped out completely. I'm talking houses floating down the river kind of stuff. Most were pretty expensive houses and they cried and cried cause they all got washed away. Today there are double the people living in the same exact location betting that the river won't ever get back up to where it was. I don't have much sympathy for people constantly building in areas where they know is going to flood. Now I understand the whole city can't pick up and move but I can't think of any rational reason I would invest my life savings into a place below sea level if I live next to it.
Then again I'm just hill folk
Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We are evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that. --Saul Tigh
Originally posted by MOBIUS
Well we wouldn't want him to change would we...?
Yep, a classic case of the selfish 'I'm alright Jack' attitude of his we so well know and love...
Yep, and of course, we know that the politicos won't cut the funding for Washington to survive a natural disaster.
It's kind of like the promotion of preventative care. It's cheaper to keep paying for people to keep on going to see the doctor every year than it is to end up having to deal with a horrible illness that wasn't diagnosed in time.
Most rational people realize that the funding may have prevented some of the biggest damage that the feds are going to end up paying anyway because they really aren't in the mood to see their 'recovery' go up in smoke because one of the biggest cities in the country can't recover from a natural disaster because of lack of local funds.
Of course, like I said, it takes rational people, not Bush ass-kissers.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Yep, and of course, we know that the politicos won't cut the funding for Washington to survive a natural disaster.
DC is a federal city, for better and worse.
When did you start relying on lame ass arguments, Imran?
It's kind of like the promotion of preventative care. It's cheaper to keep paying for people to keep on going to see the doctor every year than it is to end up having to deal with a horrible illness that wasn't diagnosed in time.
I have faith in the people of New Orleans to build adequate levees, if they intend to continue to live there. Why is the federal government a necessary aspect of this process?
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
Most rational people realize that the funding may have prevented some of the biggest damage
Why? Unless you can point to evidence that New Orleans was planning to increase the height of their levees but couldn't because of a lack of funds, any rational person would conclude that statements like those above are hogwash.
KH FOR OWNER! ASHER FOR CEO!! GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!
Originally posted by DanS
When did you start relying on lame ass arguments, Imran?
Sorry, that's your sole jurisdiction.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
Most rational people realize that the funding may have prevented some of the biggest damage
Why? Unless you can point to evidence that New Orleans was planning to increase the height of their levees but couldn't because of a lack of funds, any rational person would conclude that statements like those above are hogwash.
What exactly do you think New Orleans would have done with increased hurricane prevention funds? Send them back? They may have increased the levees, or strengthened them, or done other projects to reduce any damage a hurricane may cause.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Tweet
Comment