Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Direct election of Senators is idiocy

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about 6 months ago

User Journal 77

In response to damn_regsitrars, who thinks that repealing the 17th Amendment would be a bad thing, I admonish him to step out of his Progressive shell and consider that there were 13 States, and they delegated certain limited powers to a Federal government for interstate and international reasons.
The question

In response to damn_regsitrars, who thinks that repealing the 17th Amendment would be a bad thing, I admonish him to step out of his Progressive shell and consider that there were 13 States, and they delegated certain limited powers to a Federal government for interstate and international reasons.
The question

How do you encourage [citizen engagement] while simultaneously taking away the ability for citizens to vote for representation in the senate?

is rooted in a non-grasp of what the Founders were out to achieve. See http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Constitution-Akhil-Reed-Amar-ebook/dp/B000SEPKIU/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393979724&sr=1-1&keywords=akhil+reed+amar for some desperately needed understanding.
The Senate is to be a set of ambassadors from States, to DC. Much of our collapse is due to the States being diminished as political objects. The House, inevitably, is going to want to borrow and spend endlessly; the Senate is supposed to be the adults in the room. OOPS! The Senate's not going to pass a budget. Why? It's an election year! They'd rather protect their careers than do anything statesmanlike. Do. You. Fail. To. See. The. Problem, damn_registrars, you ignorant SNL reference?
By your degenerate, MOAR VOTES==BETTA logic, we should have the Supreme Court run for election, as well.
Federalism, pipsqueak.

cancel ×

77 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 6 months ago | (#46403819)

The end was intent to cripple state government, making them mere Federal administrative delegated regions. Necessary along with the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Income Tax amendment, to make the former "USA" defunct, and replace it with an American nation capable of completing its imprial advature beyond the boundaries of the continent.

It is no mistake that these actions are taken, as the final southwestern states are joined to the Union, and US begins transgressing into Europe and Mexico, after testing the waters with Spain.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46405235)

Holy crap, a liberal who believes in the sovereignty of the states?

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 6 months ago | (#46405341)

You always mistake me for a Liberal. If I defy some of your other biases, that does not locate me on the other end of a bi-polar axis.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46405379)

I have never once mistaken you for a liberal.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 6 months ago | (#46405787)

And I have never mistaken you for anything than a liar and player of head games.

Go fuck yourself.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46407869)

Wow, are you a fucking moron.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 6 months ago | (#46416477)

Wow, I am so intimidated by the towering intellect of your response.

90% of the stuff you post consists of the following:

PUDGE: [Posts something that any reasonable person would see as implying X]
OTHER: [something based on X]
PUDGE: I didn't say X! [See, I'm so clever!]

I expect such games from a 4-year-old. Coming from an alleged adult, they're just dishonest and tiresome.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46418199)

Wow, I am so intimidated by the towering intellect of your response.

I wanted to meet you at your level.

90% of the stuff you post consists of the following:

PUDGE: [Posts something that any reasonable person would see as implying X]
OTHER: [something based on X]
PUDGE: I didn't say X! [See, I'm so clever!]

I expect such games from a 4-year-old. Coming from an alleged adult, they're just dishonest and tiresome.

You're lying. In fact, you can't come up with a single example of this ever happening. You're completely full of shit.

Now, if you s/reasonable person would see as implying/troll or moron would claim implies/, then you might have the beginning of a point. But you didn't, so you don't.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46407695)

HA! ZTM got you pegged. You just proved yourself to be a liar. Welcome to the club!

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46406775)

I've always considered you a libertarian, FWIW.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 6 months ago | (#46409929)

'Cept I believe there's a real role for Government. And I think there are things often left as common interest, best achieved through pooling resources.

Especially when it comes to defending the weak, the powerless and helpless. You need either divinely guided, benevolent philosopher kings and knights of chivalry...

Or functioning institutions of an enlightened democratic society, in which government is but one functioning part, along with education and real money.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 6 months ago | (#46407515)

Jeremiah Cornelius is a liberal? [slashdot.org] News to me. I always took him to be an angry black conservative muslim Jihadist.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46407921)

By his words, yes, he's always seemed so to me. And I have seen no evidence -- well, except for the present exception, that he believes in the sovereignty of states, which while it does distinguish him from other liberals, is not actually a left/right issue on the merits -- that implies otherwise.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46411033)

Wow, same mistake twice, in one JE no less. You're on a roll there ,buddy. Keep up the good work :-)

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46412501)

mistake

No evidence that I have made a mistake has been offered.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46412911)

Yeah yeah, leave to you to evade the [slashdot.org] obvious [slashdot.org] .

You are a LIAR! Peace

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46413001)

Um. No one asserts that I didn't say he was a liberal. I said he was a liberal. I said it twice.

How is this evidence that I made a mistake?

You can't be this clueless, can you?

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46414123)

I said he was a liberal. I said it twice.

And he said he isn't. I will believe him. You made a mistake. Now you are intentionally trying to deceive us that you didn't. That is a lie, and you are a LAIR! Love

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46414205)

And he said he isn't.

Correct.

You made a mistake.

Incorrect.

Now you are intentionally trying to deceive us that you didn't.

Shrug. Until you give any evidence that I made a mistake, you're lying by saying I am lying.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46414973)

You say he's a liberal. He says he's not (something which happens to be true, judging by his posts)

You are either mistaken, or you are lying. Those are your choices. Pick one.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46418173)

You say he's a liberal. He says he's not

True.

something which happens to be true, judging by his posts

False.

You are either mistaken, or you are lying.

False.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46419223)

Well cool, thanks for eliminating all doubt that you are full of it. Have a nice day :-)

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46419429)

It's odd that you say there's no doubt I am wrong, despite the fact that you still refuse to provide any evidence that I am wrong.

Well, by "odd," I mean "completely expected."

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46421125)

...you still refuse to provide any evidence...

Pearls to the swine! Seeds landing on stone. It never did any good before. I have no reason to expect any different now. Deny deny deny all you want. You're wasting your breath.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46421399)

It never did any good before.

When? Where's your evidence that ever happened? It didn't.

It's funny how most times when I ask you trolls for evidence, you pretend that you've done it before, and that I ignored it.

What's even funnier is when damn_registrars says I've responded to evidence provided, and links to a discussion where I responded to the evidence in precise detail ... and provided evidence of my own, that he didn't respond to.

If anything, it's well-known that I regularly engage presented evidence, in probably far too much detail.

What's funniest of all is that it really seems like you think you're fooling anyone.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46422285)

As is well known by all, you are lying. That's all there is to tell you anymore. You are a liar and a troll. Albeit a very successful one. You are a pile of poop and you attract flies. It must mean we all like poop.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46422825)

Predictable, and predicted: you supply no evidence, most likely because you have none.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46422929)

You are lying, and trolling

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

pudge (3605) | about 6 months ago | (#46423013)

Hm.

I predicted you would not give evidence.

You did not give evidence.

Given that you do not provide evidence, it is likely you have none.

Which part do you incorrectly think is a lie?

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46429293)

You're still lying.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

RailGunner (554645) | about 6 months ago | (#46409309)

Muslim?

Pretty sure he said he was Zoroastrian at some point.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 6 months ago | (#46409527)

Something anti-Zionist CIA at any rate....

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46411067)

Yeah, and Puerto Ricans are Mexicans.

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

RailGunner (554645) | about 6 months ago | (#46412075)

Where did I claim that Muslims and Zoroastrians have anything to do with each other (aside from both being Monotheistic)?

Re:Here I TOTALLY Agree With You (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 6 months ago | (#46405709)

We started transgressing into Mexico about 65 years before Amendment XVII was passed. Where do you think those southwestern states came from, and why do you think the Chicanos refer to that region as Aztlán?

BTW, I agree with repeal, although probably not for the same reasons that Jerry or Smitty does.

Appomattox (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 months ago | (#46407427)

Much of our collapse is due to the States being diminished as political objects.

Well, we did sort of fight a war over that, and your Confederate heroes lost.

Let's be honest: ultimately, the States were diminished as political objects because they just didn't know how to behave like human beings.

Slave patrols, segregation, Jim Crow, etc. And with recent efforts to disenfranchise poor and minority voters, discriminate against women and gays and continue to fly the symbol of treason and treachery in America as part of their state flags and license plates, it appears they still don't know how to behave.

The effort to stop direct elections of senators is just another of Mark Levin's "Republicans Lose Elections" amendments, which many of you believe have become necessary because...Republicans lose elections. Go down the list of the Liberty Amendments and you'll see that it's got little to do with "restoring the Constitution" and everything to do with, "Man, people hate us, so how can we get back in power?"

Re:Appomattox (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46407885)

...how can we get back in power?

Gotta force white women to have more babies. This demographic threat is big stuff. I don't know why they insist on republicans. The democrats are doing their job for them. But, I still believe It's wag the dog. The republicans are playing crazy to scare people into voting for democrats to keep the system in place.

And yeah, this "states rights" and "religious freedom" schtick is pretty transparent. Evidently they needed a black face in the white house to bring it to the surface. Bang up job in that department. In many ways, not necessarily good, Obama can be labeled the *most successful* president ever.

Re:Appomattox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46408121)

You rayciss!

Re:Appomattox (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 months ago | (#46408625)

Obama can be labeled the *most successful* president ever.

Unless one happens to care about progressive issues, in which case he's a flaming wreck of a president.

And Hillary is in the wings waiting to carry the flaming wreck torch. I almost wish there was a single viable Republican national candidate. Jack Kemp, even, but he'd just get primaried to hell for being a "french Republican". I wouldn't vote for him, but it might bring the debate back from the land of the surreal.

Re:Appomattox (1)

RailGunner (554645) | about 6 months ago | (#46409337)

single viable Republican national candidate

Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, Kelly Ayotte, Bobby Jindal...

Though I think that if he runs, the 2016 Nomination is Scott Walker's to lose. Rand Paul might have an edge due to the Ronulans and his father's campaign org...

As for me, I'd vote for Rand Paul, whereas I'd never vote for Ron Paul.

Re:Appomattox (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46410773)

Yes, let's go straight to Crazy Town! All aboard!

Re:Appomattox (1)

RailGunner (554645) | about 6 months ago | (#46412085)

Crazy Town, population: Democrats.

Re:Appomattox (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46412215)

Absolutely, along with their partners, the republicans, and supporting actors, the tea party red noses. Birds of a feather. Zebras of the same stripes. Sneetches with and without stars. Sharing the spoils of gullibility. You get a gold star for playing your part so well.

Re:Appomattox (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46415127)

Yeah, Detroit: yeah.

Re:Appomattox (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46410669)

Well, that's the thing, a person that votes for either a republican or democrat can't possibly care about progressive issues, or any other issue that doesn't feed the power/money trough. Everybody can keep on playing the "lesser evil" game, but 10,,000 years of history has convinced me it's a losing venture. Well maybe not.. It can go on indefinitely since it is nature's way. But if we really want to progress, we have to do things a little differently. Things that would appear "unnatural", like stop sucking up to the alpha authority in the hopes of becoming one.

Re:Appomattox (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46415121)

Unless one happens to care about progressive issues

Oh no, Obama furthers deficit spending and vote buying like it won't nothin' but a thang. Or did you drink that Progressive kool-aid about caring? Exhibit A: ObamaCare.

Re:Appomattox (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 months ago | (#46415373)

Or did you drink that Progressive kool-aid about caring?

What can I say? I'm a soft touch when it comes to human beings, like that Palestinian dude with the sandals from 2000 years ago.

You know, the community organizer.

Re:Appomattox (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46417087)

You blaspheme recreationally, there. But if you really do care, then why insist on doing it by government proxy?

Re:Appomattox (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 months ago | (#46424217)

I don't think we're talking about the same guy.

Re:Appomattox (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46424457)

There were no "Palestinians" 2k years ago, but you did a fine job of roping me in. Kudos.

Re:Appomattox (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 6 months ago | (#46429545)

Well, there was a place called "Palestine" and what do you think you would call someone from this place?

The Bible refers to it at least four times, as "Palestine" or "Palestina" depending upon your translation of choice.

I would think a believer would be more well-versed on the Good Book.

Re:Appomattox (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46433757)

If your argument included a more robust survey, and noted that the Bible spent a great deal more time talking about Canaan, you'd sound less a Philistine.
Nice try, though. I cannot commend the Good Book to you enough.

Re:Appomattox (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46415095)

(a) I hold the Confederates 'heroes' roughly to the extent that Jeremiah Cornelius is a liberal (see discussion above)
(b) I don't hold that the diminishing of the States really occurred until Wilson & the Progressives sodomized our Constitution in 1913.

with recent efforts to disenfranchise poor and minority voters, discriminate against women and gays and continue to fly the symbol of treason and treachery in America as part of their state flags and license plates, it appears they still don't know how to behave.

(c) You offer copious credit where undue. Are you quaffing what damn_registrars has been drinking, or what?

Who keeps the tempo here? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 6 months ago | (#46411861)

I asked you a question, and you danced all around it. Or does citizen disenfranchisement not matter if the citizens we are talking about are not voting correctly?

Not that it matters. You were fine with direct election of senators when they were senators from the right party. Now that the senate is only marginally conservative, and the distribution of occupiers of governors' mansions in this country strongly favors your side, you advocate for changing the law.

I'm willing to bet money that if the GOP takes the senate in the 2014 midterm elections, you and many others will rapidly work to backpedal away from this stance.

Re:Who keeps the tempo here? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46415187)

I asked you a question, and you danced all around it. Or does citizen disenfranchisement not matter if the citizens we are talking about are not voting correctly?

Your question is based upon a flawed understanding of the purpose of the Senate, a deliberate idiocy sown by Progressives.
The debt has ballooned since the 17th Amendment. You have Senators failing to act as a check on the House, due to an impending election, as I showed in the JE.

You were fine with direct election of senators when they were senators from the right party.

I mean, I learned (the Amar book linked in the JE, among other sources.) I do think that your "Past thought is constant, and your opinion cannot change" fallacy. I guess if I were evolving, like Obama, to think that gay marriage is swell, you'd be OK with that?

I'm willing to bet money that if the GOP takes the senate in the 2014 midterm elections, you and many others will rapidly work to backpedal away from this stance.

I realize that, as a completely principle-free being, you are challenged to think that I retain some. I also realize that, as a hyper-partisan tool, you think me some sort of GOP sycophant. I'm only interested in reform. The GOP does not really seem to recall that it was born as an anti-slavery party, given that it's as guilty as the Democrats of our modern debt slavery.
Consciousness, man: please give it a try.

Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about 6 months ago | (#46423579)

Without reading much of this, I will voice my ongoing objection to repealing the direct election provisions of the 17th Amendment. I trust my own vote more than I do that of those rascals in Nashville, that's why. If you really want cronyism, go that appointment route either by the executive or by committee.

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46424447)

If you think your Senators are representing much other than their party, I have sad, sad news for you, as evidenced by the JE's noting of a punt on a budget this, an election year.
If you're casual with that kind of fiddling while the country burns, whine not about the smokey air, sir.

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about 6 months ago | (#46425113)

Somehow you think they would stop representing their various Parties if they were anointed/appointed by the Statehouse? Sorry, I cannot disagree more.

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46425371)

No, the real effect would be to have them appointed by the State, which means there would be higher turnover [blogspot.com] .

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about 6 months ago | (#46427369)

Garbage. "More turnover" is a complete copout answer.

I can see from a legislature map why the partisan Republicans are all for this idea. There is not argument for those who are for liberty to support it, and you certainly have not even attempted to make that argument.

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46432969)

It is not a complete cop-out. You see that the Democrats have more loyalty to their party than their sworn duty, in that they're no bringing a budget up to vote. I think that this is a direct effect of the 17th Amendment.

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about 6 months ago | (#46435145)

It is not a complete cop-out. You see that the Democrats have more loyalty to their party than their sworn duty, in that they're no bringing a budget up to vote. I think that this is a direct effect of the 17th Amendment.

Yes, it is a complete cop-out and all of these Republicans pushing for this now will be squealing like stuck pigs when the Statehouses switch parties sometime in the future. If someone has as much power over your life as a US Senator, or the local dog catcher, they need to be subject to a direct election, not appointed by a bunch of people 200, or 2000 miles away, most of whom you never had any say in their election at all.

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46435793)

Of course the idea is a mixed bag. As long as you're happy with 90lbs of crap from a federal senator more inclined to the ear of DC and his party than his state, it will seem better than 10lbs of crap from the same senator when the state flips and the term is up under a new governor.
I'm still not confident you've understood the systemic argument here.

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46442815)

You will not reduce corruption through elections. This we already know. The voters are as corrupt as the people they elect, or this would not be an issue. I've already told Mr. Smith that the only way to mitigate the cronyism and so on, you have to throw it up to pure luck of the draw, literally. Every person will have his name thrown into a hat after he reaches any arbitrary age you want to set, and if it comes up, he has to serve, like jury duty. After one term, out he goes, back to the farm.

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46451071)

You haven't shown how your random approach filters out corruption, other than some blind stochastic faith. Here and we thought Christianity was an intellectual stretch.

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46452597)

Let''s just call it the "uncertainty principle". Since we already know that the present system is corrupt by nature, we should do something we haven't tried before.

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46453045)

I've also not tried homosexuality, heroin, and eating a bullet. Strangely lacking motivation.

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46454801)

It is not hard to tell what you are afraid of here. The loss of the prestige and status would be a very difficult transition.

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46459701)

It's hard to tell why you confuse a love of wisdom with fear.

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46488445)

:-) You are the king of projection

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46489069)

Merely your humble student.

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46489673)

See? Exactly what I'm saying.

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46491051)

Wow, I can parrot you back, as well. So?

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 6 months ago | (#46492691)

Well, that's all you've been doing. I'm more interested in what you think after you clear the wood pile out of your eyes..

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#46494171)

I think it's going to be interesting to watch the GOP take Congress in November, and achieve a meta-fecklessness over top of Obama's garden-variety fecklessness. Elections have consequences, but only when they are about empowering DC at the expense of the people.

Re:Damn, why must I agree with DR? (1)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about 6 months ago | (#46435169)

However, I am all for a term limit like that in the Articles of Confederation, where elected officials can only serve X years out of a block of X+Y years, but they are free for voters to evaluate at any time outside of that window.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>