I have a mild allergy of sorts to tobacco smoke. It's unpleasant regardless, but it got much worse since this developed. I never was a smoker, and many people I know, including myself, hate the habit.
Given that smoking has shifted to be much more frowned on nowadays, I am wondering: Why is it still acceptable to smoke in public places in so many parts of the country? Should it be? Why aren't there bans all over the place on smoking anywhere other than a private location? Is it just the tobacco lobby? Or is there something more that keeps smoking from jumping to its resting place as a nasty habit that is not appropriate in public? Any thoughts?
Probably because smokers are people. I dislike unempathetic people, but I don't want them banned from public places.
His problems attracting minorities have mainly been in southern states. The south has pretty much already voted though. That's what I meant when I said the remaining map favors him. I think with the states coming up to vote it will be a lot easier for him to make inroads.
Right now its hard for any democrat in the presidency to have a strong influence on policy with the republican congress. We've seen with Obama that no matter how modest or inspired by the GOP the proposal it unlikely to even get a vote. I dont think the republicans would be more likely to work with Clinton, a person they've spent decades trying to politically assassinate. Bernie is correct when he says any change is going to require political revolution, and its worth noting there that 80% of congress is also up for re-election.
My biggest reason for Supporting Sanders isn't any of that though. I support him because I think we need to prove, as a country, that someone who operates he way he does can win the top job. Its gonna sound cheesy but he has verifiable integrity. It would be easier to fund his campaign the way everyone else does, with big money donors and superpacs, but that wouldn't be the right thing to do, so he isnt doing it. He supports civil rights now, when it an help him get elected, but he also did back when it was more likely to get him arrested. I keep looking, but like Matt Taibbi said "If he's motivated by anything other than a desire to use his influence to protect people who cant protect themselves, I haven't seen it." I know the odds are against him, but they have been from the start, and I -want- to see America elect someone like that o the highest office because I think it would signal other people like that that its possible to succeed in American politics.
This is very true, and its something that's easy to lose sight of when all you get to see is a debate. Sanders does have a track record for doing the right thing because its the right thing. It's extremely admirable, and it is a quality I want in leadership. I still worry though that if he wins, even if it sends a message "This kind of guy can win," that his message (and mine) will somehow be damaged. Maybe that makes me a coward. Maybe I'm just being tactical. I'm not sure. You've given me something to think on. Thank you for the thoughts.
If Sanders did get the nomination, man, that'd be a hell of a debate. (likely vs Trump)
I'm under the impression Trump would crucify him in debates and still lose the general election due to Bernie's stances and just the general hatred towards Donald Trump. I'm a Trump supporter and the last thing I want is a Bernie vs Trump race, despite how entertaining it would be. We would almost certainly lose.
Trump crucify Bernie in debates!? To be fair, I could be misunderstanding what you mean. If you mean Trump will attack Bernie personally and Bernie will continue to talk about the issues than I completely agree.
I don't hate thoughtseize as much as I hate the people around me who use it. Last guy I played on game day who used it had used 3 of them in the first few turns. Each time he did he wrote down every single card in my hand. Not that it's against the rules or anything, but nothing ruins my fun than someone who's taking the game way too seriously.
Someone is taking the game too seriously because after he saw the contents of your hand he wrote it down? A big selling point on discard spells in general is the information they provide, so why wouldn't you make sure that you keep track of all of this useful information you just acquired ? In casual games I can understand but in any tournament where you are trying to win there is no reason to not play optimally because it only increases your chance to do well. Intentionally playing poorly so that people don't think you take a children's card game too seriously would be much more stupid than taking a children's card game too seriously in my opinion.
[QUOTE=thetrueshyguy;/comments/12457487]Just a quick observation...
"Against control, it plays like a really, really bad Jace, Memory Adept except for the one day you hit one of their Aetherlings."
Against control...
1) It plays like a cheaper Jace.
2) It would play in conjunction with Jace.
3) If you hit control's Aetherling, doesn't that shift the odds more in your favor because you've hit one of their few wincons?[/
I don't think most of you need shaheen to tell you this card is bad you can you know, read the card. If there was someone's opinion I would respect on plainswalkers it would be his considering he has played plainswalker control since they have been printed.
Only if you're the better player, with the better-constructed deck. The more consistency in draws, the more the outcome of a game is predetermined, or at least heavily imbalanced, before it's even begun. Of course this is good to an extent, the better player should obviously win more often, but with less and less variance a player has less and less chance of ever winning when playing someone above their skill level. When you're talking about events like FNM, it's in Wizards' best interest to make sure less skilled players still have some chance of doing decently well at these kinds of tournaments to keep them interested in the game. Skill and experience are still an enormous advantage, but not an insurmountable one, and that's healthier for a game that wants to attract and maintain new players.
That is probably true. With that said, my first deck was caw blade and consistently losing with it in the beginning gave me faith that the game had a large amount of skill in it which kept me coming back. Now I feel a lot less inclined to keep playing. New players can always just play mono red or naya blitz like decks and approach decks with birthing pod like decision trees when they feel more competent. I am probably in the minority but if I beat much better players than me when I first started playing I probably would have quit a long time ago.
You're just being willfully ignorant if you're going to claim you have little/no control over the outcome of a game of Magic if you can't control any of your draw steps.
If you want more consistency in your deck, make your deck more consistent when building it. That's one of the most basic elements of the game, trading off consistency versus flexibility.
Obviously I am exaggerating a little, all I am trying to say is that cheap cantrips may lead to games feeling "too similar" but that is not actually a problem. When you have cheap draw spells you flood/get screwed less and have a larger chance of getting to play a game of magic. In modern not having these kind of cards make sense if they are going to keep the combo decks around because it makes them way too good. Standard has not had a good combo deck since twin and I do not see that changing in the near future. So, if consistency does not lead to degeneracy then why is it a problem?
this should not be a surprise, wizards has stated multiple times that these cheap cantrips make the games feel to similar and add too much consistency.
Why would you want to make your deck more consistent when you could just hope to get lucky on the top of your deck? Obviously ponder and preordain like cards are huge skill testers but wizards want standard to move away from decision making because it can get get pretty boring when you have any actual control on the outcome of a game of magic.
I had to make an account because of how blown away I am by the fact that people think this card is better then augur. Give it a month or two, this card will not even see half the amount of play augur did. If you think a 1/3 without card advantage is going to be better than a 1/3 with card advantage then you do not understand magic.
Probably because smokers are people. I dislike unempathetic people, but I don't want them banned from public places.
Trump crucify Bernie in debates!? To be fair, I could be misunderstanding what you mean. If you mean Trump will attack Bernie personally and Bernie will continue to talk about the issues than I completely agree.
In other news, water is wet.
Someone is taking the game too seriously because after he saw the contents of your hand he wrote it down? A big selling point on discard spells in general is the information they provide, so why wouldn't you make sure that you keep track of all of this useful information you just acquired ? In casual games I can understand but in any tournament where you are trying to win there is no reason to not play optimally because it only increases your chance to do well. Intentionally playing poorly so that people don't think you take a children's card game too seriously would be much more stupid than taking a children's card game too seriously in my opinion.
in what world is exiling 3 cards card advantage?
card advantage is when you are somehow up a card, or even a permanent. if you get to use his minus then I would agree it is card advantage.
divination is card advantage. If you replaced divinations text to draw 1 card and exile 3 from a players library it would not be card advantage.
"Against control, it plays like a really, really bad Jace, Memory Adept except for the one day you hit one of their Aetherlings."
Against control...
1) It plays like a cheaper Jace.
2) It would play in conjunction with Jace.
3) If you hit control's Aetherling, doesn't that shift the odds more in your favor because you've hit one of their few wincons?[/
I don't think most of you need shaheen to tell you this card is bad you can you know, read the card. If there was someone's opinion I would respect on plainswalkers it would be his considering he has played plainswalker control since they have been printed.
That is probably true. With that said, my first deck was caw blade and consistently losing with it in the beginning gave me faith that the game had a large amount of skill in it which kept me coming back. Now I feel a lot less inclined to keep playing. New players can always just play mono red or naya blitz like decks and approach decks with birthing pod like decision trees when they feel more competent. I am probably in the minority but if I beat much better players than me when I first started playing I probably would have quit a long time ago.
Obviously I am exaggerating a little, all I am trying to say is that cheap cantrips may lead to games feeling "too similar" but that is not actually a problem. When you have cheap draw spells you flood/get screwed less and have a larger chance of getting to play a game of magic. In modern not having these kind of cards make sense if they are going to keep the combo decks around because it makes them way too good. Standard has not had a good combo deck since twin and I do not see that changing in the near future. So, if consistency does not lead to degeneracy then why is it a problem?
Why would you want to make your deck more consistent when you could just hope to get lucky on the top of your deck? Obviously ponder and preordain like cards are huge skill testers but wizards want standard to move away from decision making because it can get get pretty boring when you have any actual control on the outcome of a game of magic.
The OP means no wrathable ramp, also urban Burgeoning and frenzied tilling are not magic cards.