This was the first time I got a ridiculously good prerelease pool. Opened 2 rare angels, the tapper Captain of the Mists, and Tamiyo as playable rares in U/W. In total I had something like a dozen fliers. I was fortunately able to avoid any of the fast aggro decks and so ended up going 3-0-1. Interestingly, I didn't play against any decks with Red or Green in them.
The first game was against a quite similar U/W deck. First game he got mana screwed. Second game I got mostly mana screwed, but then he dropped Acacyn as I was finally reached five lands. Third game was mostly a stalemate and it went to time. We both later realized we had made some mistakes which could've ended it earlier. This guy also had Cavern of Souls and Temporal Mastery, so his deck was pretty loaded as well. (0-0-1)
Next I played another U/W, but crushed it 2-0. (1-0-1)
Played a W/B next, but he kept having mana problems and Tamiyo shut him down twice in a row. (2-0-1)
Last opponent was another B/W, a much more aggressive deck which gave me problems. The 3/2 that deals 3 damage to each player upon death, and the 4/1 regenerating bat were particularly annoying, but I managed to survive them with help from Seraph of Dawn's lifelink, and by making use of every piece of removal I had. Also, Defy Death on Angel of Glory's Rise is pretty nuts. I think I'm lucky to have beat him 2-0, both games were close. (3-0-1)
I ended up winning six packs, in which the only notable rares were Vexing Devil and Silverblade Paladin. All in all, a very good day.
Hmm, seems that the Helvault was sometimes free, sometimes not. At my store it was an extra $5 to attend the Helvault event, the non-Helvault event was the regular $25.
As for the 2000 election...I like to bring that up whenever a member of the left wing says that the right wing is over-exaggerating the prevalence of voter fraud in Federal elections. Whether or not the 2000 election was voter fraud or just a very tight race, we will never know. Republicans say it was a tight race. Democrats claim it was large scale voter fraud.
You're getting your terms mixed up. Voter fraud is fraud on the part of the voter. Voter suppression is preventing people from voting. The 2000 election was allegations of voter suppression (people with similar names as felons being barred from voting, hanging chads, etc). The suspicion was that the state--governed by Bush's brother, and with the lieutenant governor who directed the state's voting procedures also being on Bush's campaign--was responsible for the voter suppression that cost Gore the election.
What Republicans complain about is voter fraud--people voting multiple times, dead people voting etc--which is what these new laws would seek to prevent.
The problem that some people have with mandated IDs to vote is that it would be a form of poll tax. Even where the ID itself is free, poor people in cities would probably need to use public transportation to get to a DMV, costing money. There have also been allegations that Republicans have been cutting back on DMVs, making it more difficult for people to obtain new IDs. Such as this.
I won't even comment much on your whining about cities having more representation than rural areas, because others have handled that. All I'll say is that property requirements for voting were dropped for a reason. Also, "1 person one vote".
It probably won't. I feel like it'll be good in aggro or self mill decks that will fill of the graveyard fast enough for it to top the curve at 4 or 5. But for decks that curve out higher there are much better options *cough titans cough*. And, just as importantly, it's an intro pack rare.
So long as DFCs get plenty of support in DKA and any tribes/strategies reliant on them *cough werewolves* get enough support in DKA or other relevant non-DFC support in AVR, I'll be fine with it. No, this isn't at all motivated by my having a werewolf deck and not wanting to see it go the same as allies did in RoE...
Well, shipping and handling costs vary depending on the amount of cards involved, therefore making it hard to add those prices into the prices of the cards themselves. For example, buying one card or three cards will require the same trip to the post office, not three different trips.
As a moderate-leaning liberal, I haven't been too pleased with his presidency. But considering the challenges he's faced, he's done an okay job. Could've been worse.
But I'll still vote for him, maybe work or campaign for him. Why? Because of the Republican candidates, Huntsman is the only one who I could see being a good president. Scratch that, he's the only one whose election wouldn't make me fear for the future of the United States. The rest are a mix of stupid, crazy, and/or extremist and I do not want them anywhere near the presidency. And while he's not stupid, not crazy, and not always extremist, Newt, as Krauthammer said, has Obama's ego minus the self discipline. He's an egomaniac full of ideas and "solutions", most of which are bad.
Card Slinger, as you said, his problem is money. He might have some valid complaints about the system, but without money he won't be able to get his message out to people to start decent fundraising. For example, I've never heard much about him and I'm sure I'm not alone in that. Ron Paul is very outspoken and has built up a fanatical following over the years, enabling him to get prime-time coverage, although even he had to fight to get questions at the debates. It seems like Buddy needs a base of support to get his message out so that he can get donations from all of the people that agree with his message about corruption in the system. Without one, he'll never get off the ground, which is sad.
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Democracy: The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001. 50-54. Print.
Hmm, doesn't exactly seem like a neutral book. I did some initial wiki research on it, and I see what he says. Like yourself though, he seems to assume that monarchs are 1) rational actors, and 2) think that they wouldn't risk damage to their holdings. Look at Wall Street for instance, they take risks all the time. Everyone takes risks. If you're ruled by a monarch though, you have no say in what risks might be taken involving you. His premise seems extremely idealistic and based off a mythological past. I suggest you read some real European, Middle Eastern, and Asian histories because I don't think Hoppe has.
Do you know how high taxes are in modern democratic France?
Evidently not as high as during the French Revolution, because as the poster above said, the majority of the French population isn't half-starved and in abject poverty.
Not anywhere near the scale of democracies.
As I said, this is due to logistics. Now a few farmers can provide food for an entire nation. Back in the glory days of monarchies, that simply wasn't possible. And in today's world conscription is either a fairly short term used to give everyone some basic military training and instill some national pride, or used during times of war. And Presidents, unlike monarchs, usually do not go to war if their population is drastically opposed to it.
What proportion of the population was drafted? Modern Russia has universal male conscription.
Not sure about the percentage, but once conscripted a term in the Russian army lasted for 25 years. Eventually this was reduced to 12. As opposed to either 12 or 18 months currently. Once again, it would be impossible to have universal male conscription if everyone served more than a decade in the army.
With the fall of the Roman Republic and the birth of Imperial Rome, the conscription system was replaced with a mainly volunteer army.
I'm pretty sure that it wasn't the fact that it became a monarchy that prompted those changes. It was more due to the changing nature of the empire.
If they won, which is far from a sure thing. Plus, the land they obtained would be in a ravaged state and the enemy would no longer hold back on pillaging whatever they could get their hands on.
So then why did so many monarchs launch wars of conquest against their neighbors? Do you want me to find a list of European medieval wars, because I'm sure wikipedia can provide such a thing with decent accuracy. Are you saying that they were all stupid monarchs for risking damage to their holdings? You really don't seem to understand that most monarchs were willing to risk their "property" (smallfolk and land) for bigger gains. Very few ruled like you think they did, or ought to have. And I think that is a big mark against your argument.
If you liquidated the assets of the nobles and distributed the proceeds in an egalitarian fashion, it would not have a noticeable impact on the welfare of the peasants.
Well sure if you dumped it on the peasants all at once then they wouldn't know what to do with it. Doesn't change the fact that the Hapsburgs, like all ruling families in history and in the current age, got rich off the backs of their lower classes.
As I said before, a good monarch would be better than a good president. The problem is that a monarchy does not consist of purely of good monarchs, and democracies/republics are the lesser of the evils. And quite a good many of the most competent monarchs in history were known for their succession wars, because that was one way to increase the monarch's territories, and thus possessions.
Monarchs waged war because the country was their property, and victory in war would give them more territory, and thus property. History does not support your assumption that monarchs would remain peaceful to safeguard their territory.
I'd prefer no taxation, period. Thank you. But if there must be taxation, let it be low taxes.
Where are you getting that taxes were low under monarchies? Have you read any Russian peasant accounts? Do you not know that a major cause of the French Revolution was that taxes were so high that French peasants were unable to feed themselves, while the king and nobility continued to exist in luxury. Good ol' Louis lost a war, so he raised taxes to pay for the rebuilding!
Refuse to join the military when you're conscripted in a democracy? Gallows at sunrise.
Monarchies conscripted too. In medieval times wars were fought by nobles because they had the weapons and training, and peasants were busy farming. Logistics meant that most peasants couldn't be taken to war especially near harvest season. As technological advances introduced weapons such as the crossbow, and later firearms, peasants were incorporated more into armies. Russia, a monarchy if there ever was one, required each village to provide a certain percentage of men for the army each year. Length of service: 25 years. Because tsars often found that one way of increasing their state's power and prestige was through conquest-i.e. war. Conscription, and the large armies seen in the 19th and 20th centuries are a result of technological and logistical advances, not some belief in larger scale warfare. Look up the Seven Years' War, even then there were some pretty large armies being fielded. Look at ancient China, or ancient Rome.
No, but the president can order assassinations and indefinite detainments without trial.
And monarchs could do the same. A lot more easily, most of the time.
Right. And if their countryside was pillaged and burned, it would have significant effects on the treasury.
It would. But if the monarch's army won then they could get reparations, new land etc. Granted, it sucked for the peasants who lost their homes and crops, but they were just tools of the state and sometimes even belonged to the monarch. History is full of monarchs who exhausted the treasury through wasteful and failed wars.
The Habsburgs had big fancy houses. That's a very minor offense. Under democracies, corporations and other special interests get huge globs of special interest money paid for by the taxpayer.
A lot of peasants lived a subsistence lifestyle so that the nobles could afford those estate.
I will be the first to say that a country ruled by an excellent monarch is better than a country ruled by an excellent president. The problem is, excellent monarchs can have terrible heirs. Or go senile, or insane. And their the monarch, so they keep ruling. Bad presidents can be removed from office via election; monarch's can only be removed via coup and revolution.
The first game was against a quite similar U/W deck. First game he got mana screwed. Second game I got mostly mana screwed, but then he dropped Acacyn as I was finally reached five lands. Third game was mostly a stalemate and it went to time. We both later realized we had made some mistakes which could've ended it earlier. This guy also had Cavern of Souls and Temporal Mastery, so his deck was pretty loaded as well. (0-0-1)
Next I played another U/W, but crushed it 2-0. (1-0-1)
Played a W/B next, but he kept having mana problems and Tamiyo shut him down twice in a row. (2-0-1)
Last opponent was another B/W, a much more aggressive deck which gave me problems. The 3/2 that deals 3 damage to each player upon death, and the 4/1 regenerating bat were particularly annoying, but I managed to survive them with help from Seraph of Dawn's lifelink, and by making use of every piece of removal I had. Also, Defy Death on Angel of Glory's Rise is pretty nuts. I think I'm lucky to have beat him 2-0, both games were close. (3-0-1)
I ended up winning six packs, in which the only notable rares were Vexing Devil and Silverblade Paladin. All in all, a very good day.
1 Herald of War
1 Angel of Glory's Rise
1 Angelic Wall
1 Wingcrafter
1 Voice of the Provinces
2 Seraph of Dawn
1 Cathedral Sanctifier
2 Emancipation Angel
1 Fettergeist
1 Captain of the Mists
1 Latch Seeker
1 Gryff Vanguard
1 Mist Raven
1 Moonlight Geist
1 Favorable Winds
Planeswalker:
1 Tamiyo, the Moon Sage
Instants/Sorceries:
1 Defy Death
1 Peel from Reality
1 Banishing Stroke
1 Vanishment
Lands:
10 Plains
8 Island
You're getting your terms mixed up. Voter fraud is fraud on the part of the voter. Voter suppression is preventing people from voting. The 2000 election was allegations of voter suppression (people with similar names as felons being barred from voting, hanging chads, etc). The suspicion was that the state--governed by Bush's brother, and with the lieutenant governor who directed the state's voting procedures also being on Bush's campaign--was responsible for the voter suppression that cost Gore the election.
What Republicans complain about is voter fraud--people voting multiple times, dead people voting etc--which is what these new laws would seek to prevent.
The problem that some people have with mandated IDs to vote is that it would be a form of poll tax. Even where the ID itself is free, poor people in cities would probably need to use public transportation to get to a DMV, costing money. There have also been allegations that Republicans have been cutting back on DMVs, making it more difficult for people to obtain new IDs. Such as this.
I won't even comment much on your whining about cities having more representation than rural areas, because others have handled that. All I'll say is that property requirements for voting were dropped for a reason. Also, "1 person one vote".
It probably won't. I feel like it'll be good in aggro or self mill decks that will fill of the graveyard fast enough for it to top the curve at 4 or 5. But for decks that curve out higher there are much better options *cough titans cough*. And, just as importantly, it's an intro pack rare.
But I'll still vote for him, maybe work or campaign for him. Why? Because of the Republican candidates, Huntsman is the only one who I could see being a good president. Scratch that, he's the only one whose election wouldn't make me fear for the future of the United States. The rest are a mix of stupid, crazy, and/or extremist and I do not want them anywhere near the presidency. And while he's not stupid, not crazy, and not always extremist, Newt, as Krauthammer said, has Obama's ego minus the self discipline. He's an egomaniac full of ideas and "solutions", most of which are bad.
Hmm, doesn't exactly seem like a neutral book. I did some initial wiki research on it, and I see what he says. Like yourself though, he seems to assume that monarchs are 1) rational actors, and 2) think that they wouldn't risk damage to their holdings. Look at Wall Street for instance, they take risks all the time. Everyone takes risks. If you're ruled by a monarch though, you have no say in what risks might be taken involving you. His premise seems extremely idealistic and based off a mythological past. I suggest you read some real European, Middle Eastern, and Asian histories because I don't think Hoppe has.
Evidently not as high as during the French Revolution, because as the poster above said, the majority of the French population isn't half-starved and in abject poverty.
As I said, this is due to logistics. Now a few farmers can provide food for an entire nation. Back in the glory days of monarchies, that simply wasn't possible. And in today's world conscription is either a fairly short term used to give everyone some basic military training and instill some national pride, or used during times of war. And Presidents, unlike monarchs, usually do not go to war if their population is drastically opposed to it.
Not sure about the percentage, but once conscripted a term in the Russian army lasted for 25 years. Eventually this was reduced to 12. As opposed to either 12 or 18 months currently. Once again, it would be impossible to have universal male conscription if everyone served more than a decade in the army.
I'm pretty sure that it wasn't the fact that it became a monarchy that prompted those changes. It was more due to the changing nature of the empire.
So then why did so many monarchs launch wars of conquest against their neighbors? Do you want me to find a list of European medieval wars, because I'm sure wikipedia can provide such a thing with decent accuracy. Are you saying that they were all stupid monarchs for risking damage to their holdings? You really don't seem to understand that most monarchs were willing to risk their "property" (smallfolk and land) for bigger gains. Very few ruled like you think they did, or ought to have. And I think that is a big mark against your argument.
Well sure if you dumped it on the peasants all at once then they wouldn't know what to do with it. Doesn't change the fact that the Hapsburgs, like all ruling families in history and in the current age, got rich off the backs of their lower classes.
As I said before, a good monarch would be better than a good president. The problem is that a monarchy does not consist of purely of good monarchs, and democracies/republics are the lesser of the evils. And quite a good many of the most competent monarchs in history were known for their succession wars, because that was one way to increase the monarch's territories, and thus possessions.
Monarchs waged war because the country was their property, and victory in war would give them more territory, and thus property. History does not support your assumption that monarchs would remain peaceful to safeguard their territory.
Where are you getting that taxes were low under monarchies? Have you read any Russian peasant accounts? Do you not know that a major cause of the French Revolution was that taxes were so high that French peasants were unable to feed themselves, while the king and nobility continued to exist in luxury. Good ol' Louis lost a war, so he raised taxes to pay for the rebuilding!
Monarchies conscripted too. In medieval times wars were fought by nobles because they had the weapons and training, and peasants were busy farming. Logistics meant that most peasants couldn't be taken to war especially near harvest season. As technological advances introduced weapons such as the crossbow, and later firearms, peasants were incorporated more into armies. Russia, a monarchy if there ever was one, required each village to provide a certain percentage of men for the army each year. Length of service: 25 years. Because tsars often found that one way of increasing their state's power and prestige was through conquest-i.e. war. Conscription, and the large armies seen in the 19th and 20th centuries are a result of technological and logistical advances, not some belief in larger scale warfare. Look up the Seven Years' War, even then there were some pretty large armies being fielded. Look at ancient China, or ancient Rome.
And monarchs could do the same. A lot more easily, most of the time.
It would. But if the monarch's army won then they could get reparations, new land etc. Granted, it sucked for the peasants who lost their homes and crops, but they were just tools of the state and sometimes even belonged to the monarch. History is full of monarchs who exhausted the treasury through wasteful and failed wars.
A lot of peasants lived a subsistence lifestyle so that the nobles could afford those estate.
I will be the first to say that a country ruled by an excellent monarch is better than a country ruled by an excellent president. The problem is, excellent monarchs can have terrible heirs. Or go senile, or insane. And their the monarch, so they keep ruling. Bad presidents can be removed from office via election; monarch's can only be removed via coup and revolution.