I met him once in a MWS game. In debate he is a pain, but I def agree he is sweet in rl. I may not agree with him, but I concider him a friend.
I am surprised he has good to speak of me though. Must be because he is afraid I'll try and play magic with him again...he cannot handle the humilation.
As I recall, I won that game
As as side note - any way to check if anyone in my sig has been banned?
what if there are no red creatures? It seems like the wording suggests that if there is no red guys, you choose and destroy any critter for W... that seems wrong.
Worded properly, I think:
Destroy target RED creature with the most in its mana cost.
"HAI EVERYBODY <3 i'm a girl! i'm from usa ! did i mention i'm a GIRL? On a Magic forum? <3 <3 ^^ but obviously I have a boyfriend <3 ^^ ^^ -_- <3 you all!" Just check out that girl's username. lilsexkitten. and you people get caught in her game and give her all the attention she wants. heh.
Never, ever speak to my girlfriend again. Insulting pretty girls online leads to houses burnt to the ground and other loads of bad karma coming your way
I also see no reason why any of us are obligated to provide for another. I am by all means in favour of people voluntarily assisting others, but it's morally deficient for the state to rob people of time and money to subsidise what are often bad decisions made by others. Yes, there are those who fall into poverty through no fault of their own, but government programs to aid these people have almost universally ended in failure.
Modern 'liberals' do the term a great injustice. The root of the word means freedom and liberty, the two things which are crushed underfoot by liberals. Liberalism demeans the individual, and ignores reality in favour of some quixotic ideal. Liberalism moves away from the proper functions of the state. Liberalism is the philosophy of the morally bankrupt.
Eloquently put - this applies quite a bit the the states, and is every bit as true. Particularly, I also agree that the state is very much in the wrong taking our money and distributing it to people that "need" it.
Now, I have a question: In the UK, do you have a system similar to the welfare system we have in the states? If so, is it as blind to the abuse as ours is?
While I mostly agree with you on what you've said about them fiscally, can we leave the name-calling out of it? I think that Mark Foley and Larry Craig have shown that we conservatives are not exactly free of perversion.
I'm not reffering to individuals and their behavior - I'm saying that the liberal AGENDA makes room for these people. Sure, there are homsexuals, trannies, and drug addicts or whatever in that identify conservatives, but the difference is that conservatives do not support their lifestyles. Liberals do.
Hmm - I recall a thread like this before. Oh well.
- What are their goals? How do they achieve them?
Conservatives, republicans, what have you, are economically "liberal" and socially conservative. That is, economically, we believe in minimal government control over business practices, protecting American businesses, and generally a free market economy. Socially, we believe in ethics and morality - that there are some things that are wrong, depraved, and disgusting, regardless of whether or not someone enjoys it or not. We believe that the government should, to some degree, keep morality and social standards in check.
Liberals are economic communists, parasites, and social deviants. (this is my being very, very nice) They seek to steal money from people who work their entire lives to earn it (they are particularly harmful to people that gross exactly 1 million a year), to destroy the corporations that are the backbone of our economy, and to give that money to people who are too lazy to earn it themselves. They believe in huge taxes to support expansive and horribly inefficient government programs instead of trying to establish s functional privatized services and letting us choose where we spend our money. Finally, the ranks of the liberal brood are populated by sexual perverts, social deviants, and drug addicts that want their disgusting behaviors to become a social norm and seek to force their amoral ideology on our children under the guise of "universal acceptance", when in fact they are just as unaccepting of opposing viewpoints as anyone else.
- What are the primary differences between them? Why do you think this is?
Conservatives are based on the ideas of respect and morality. Because of this, we value hard work, and we respect social moderation.
Liberals are built on the 10-year-old "you're not the boss of me!" mentality, and as such, do whatever they want and care about whatever they want. I see them as a cross between communists and anarchists, if that makes any sense
- Where were you raised as a child? Where do you live now?
Poland and Illinois, Illinois now. So, a decent mix of both conservative and liberal ideas @ the start, though now I am stuck in this liberal ******** :/
What group did your parents consider themselves a member of?
They are moderate, with a slight conservative tinge. Mostly on the issue of abortion (pro life), but they have relatively moderate opinions on everything else.
What do you consider yourself now? Do you feel any of these things affect your definitions?
Conservative, through and through. I believe that my experiences with liberals, seeing their disgusting hypocrisy and twisted ideologies in action, their legislation that has made work HELL for my mother - a doctor, my dislike of "free rides", and a strong moral compass have pushed me into the conservative mindset.
Calling the entire liberal community parasites and perverts is obviously going to piss people off, and that's trolling. This was completely unprovoked, uncalled for, and serves no purpose other than bashing liberals. Infraction issued.
The issue is that they're not "already down" if they're trying to get back up. If they tense up and start to push off the ground, they get hit. The officer doesn't need to wait till they get up to know they're trying to get up, unfortunately, that doesn't come across very well on video and ends up looking like someone on the ground simply being beaten.
Woot! Seems like we agree on police actions, Uber. Well said.
My 2 cents - the obnoxious little prick had it coming. He was obnoxious, and I don't fault the cop for anything he did. The kid's parents just need to teach him some damned respect for adults. If anything, the cop was too nice.
Why should someone with a badge automatically be respected? Authority does not imply respect unless that authority is being used in such a way as to *deserve* respect, which imho it very rarely is. Do you automatically respect the president just because he wears a little American flag pin? The way that some people are willing to side with authority figures against their fellow citizens so easily is what scares me. That's exactly why organizations like Copwatch and private inverse surveillance is so important. Unchecked authority can lead far too easily into fascism.
-ANY- adult should be respected - and this one especially, because he is an authority figure and the little prick was CLEARLY in the wrong.
EDIT: I love how sensationalist this title is. There wasn't and brutality at all in that video - the cop just gave that kid a stern talking that his parents probably never do. As the cop said - that kid's parents probably don't put their foot to his ass often enough.
Classiness doesn't seem to have stopped you before.
It sure has - thats why you aren't my nemesis, nor is uber-mexico, nor is bryspoon. I actually enjoy arguing with you, and the stuff you post doesn't make me sick to the very core of my being.
I don't feel like arguing about drugs right now - I'm just going to leave this as no.
Drugs @ Hodoku: You never know until you try.... Na, seriously, If something was proven to have no detrimental effect to your health by doing it once, and it was fun to do, why not do it? (metaphorically speaking..... maybe).
Its a standard of mine - I don't do drugs, and I don't associate with people that do.
EDIT: Not to mention, that if it is a drug, then it automatically has to affect your brain, and therefore always has the potential to cause harm.
Eating: Why not if they are alive? What if they said, lets chop off my arm, and eat it to live?
Eat a living person is... disgusting. Not to mention that, in the situation that I was describing, removing an arm would probably result in death anyways. The very thought of eating part of a live person, consenting or not, just disgusts me.
Killing:I would love to class you in the same group as the people you mentioned, but i guess thats just my evil side.
You probably would
I am socially conservative to a point, and I believe that highly deviant beliefs should be suppressed, not exalted :/
Then again, I am campaigning for homosexuality to be put back into the DSM V
I consider most of the people IN debate my nemesis - just check my sig. However, you have demonstrated too much class to fall into that category, sorry
Drugs: hell no, ever. I don't see the point of risking physical and mental harm for jollies - there are easier, cheaper, and better ways to have fun.
Eat people: A dead person, yes. A live person - NEVER. However, I assume that this eating a person would occur in a situation like being stranded on a deserted island or something, because I would never do so if my own life weren't in dire danger.
Killing people - Only if i believe that they are a detriment to everyone - people who have thoughts and beliefs like Sakura, EvilDuck, SetAbominae, ect (no offense, its easier than describing it) fall into this category. To be more specific - I wouldn't go shoot them, but if an opportunity presented itself (i.e. a car was coming down the street and they didn't notice) I wouldn't do anything to prevent it. I guess this is my evil side :/
How did you think saying you would want to kill 4 members would be appropriate?
Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they don't deserve to live.
Good luck killing 50+% of the United States, buddy.
Flame infraction issued.
In short, weapons of mass destruction are only, have only ever been, and only ever will be useful in large-scale, nation-versus-nation conflicts where their destructive power can accomplish the wide-scale destruction that they were designed for.
But the point is that WMDs deter from that kind of war every happening - not that they would ever be used in one.
Fixed. How can you claim to know what's motivating them to destroy the world?
I am just... hoping that they ban you soon. To claim that it is anything less than pure idiocy to use such a weapon is idiotic in itself. If anyone were to ever launch one at, say, the united states, we would find him, imprison him, and erase him and anything he holds dear to himself in the most obscene way possible.
Weapons of mass destruction are strong evidence that humanity will cause its own downfall. We've gotten to the point where countries now metaphorically dicksize by how many times over they could render the planet inhabitable, and as a result, there's less good ol' shootin' and stabbin'. Another means of population control gone. *sigh*
So... you admit that WMDs result in less bloody conflicts. Ok. The rest of anything you say will be ignored, as your statements have clearly proven that you can't possibly be anything other than a 12 year old on meth.
So does anyone feel that the looming threat of overpopulation is enough to enact laws limiting the public's baby output, so to speak?
No, we don't. There is no actual looming threat of overpopulation, as we have time and time again devised ways to get around nature's shortcomings. Remember back when people were nomads? A tribe of 50 was bordering on overpopulation. Suddenly - gasp! - they invented farming, and the sustainable population limit went up. This will continue to happen as long as humans exist - our ability to adapt and improvise IS reason that we are at the top.
As I recall, I won that game
As as side note - any way to check if anyone in my sig has been banned?
I know - funny isnt it?
I'm going to have to debate this. Gimme a few days and I'll come back with an argument.
Thanks >_>
Worded properly, I think:
Destroy target RED creature with the most
Echoing FTMB's sentiments on the other cards.
Oh, and I'm back
Never, ever speak to my girlfriend again. Insulting pretty girls online leads to houses burnt to the ground and other loads of bad karma coming your way
Hay Sakura, I haven't seen you since our game online - I take it you were surprised? How have things been in debate since my wonderful self left?
Ah, and nikki says thanks for the wall of swords. (card pun courtesy of me)
Eloquently put - this applies quite a bit the the states, and is every bit as true. Particularly, I also agree that the state is very much in the wrong taking our money and distributing it to people that "need" it.
Now, I have a question: In the UK, do you have a system similar to the welfare system we have in the states? If so, is it as blind to the abuse as ours is?
I'm not reffering to individuals and their behavior - I'm saying that the liberal AGENDA makes room for these people. Sure, there are homsexuals, trannies, and drug addicts or whatever in that identify conservatives, but the difference is that conservatives do not support their lifestyles. Liberals do.
EDIT: Pitcarin? I meant unaccepting.
- What are their goals? How do they achieve them?
Conservatives, republicans, what have you, are economically "liberal" and socially conservative. That is, economically, we believe in minimal government control over business practices, protecting American businesses, and generally a free market economy. Socially, we believe in ethics and morality - that there are some things that are wrong, depraved, and disgusting, regardless of whether or not someone enjoys it or not. We believe that the government should, to some degree, keep morality and social standards in check.
Liberals are economic communists, parasites, and social deviants. (this is my being very, very nice) They seek to steal money from people who work their entire lives to earn it (they are particularly harmful to people that gross exactly 1 million a year), to destroy the corporations that are the backbone of our economy, and to give that money to people who are too lazy to earn it themselves. They believe in huge taxes to support expansive and horribly inefficient government programs instead of trying to establish s functional privatized services and letting us choose where we spend our money. Finally, the ranks of the liberal brood are populated by sexual perverts, social deviants, and drug addicts that want their disgusting behaviors to become a social norm and seek to force their amoral ideology on our children under the guise of "universal acceptance", when in fact they are just as unaccepting of opposing viewpoints as anyone else.
- What are the primary differences between them? Why do you think this is?
Conservatives are based on the ideas of respect and morality. Because of this, we value hard work, and we respect social moderation.
Liberals are built on the 10-year-old "you're not the boss of me!" mentality, and as such, do whatever they want and care about whatever they want. I see them as a cross between communists and anarchists, if that makes any sense
- Where were you raised as a child? Where do you live now?
Poland and Illinois, Illinois now. So, a decent mix of both conservative and liberal ideas @ the start, though now I am stuck in this liberal ******** :/
What group did your parents consider themselves a member of?
They are moderate, with a slight conservative tinge. Mostly on the issue of abortion (pro life), but they have relatively moderate opinions on everything else.
What do you consider yourself now? Do you feel any of these things affect your definitions?
Conservative, through and through. I believe that my experiences with liberals, seeing their disgusting hypocrisy and twisted ideologies in action, their legislation that has made work HELL for my mother - a doctor, my dislike of "free rides", and a strong moral compass have pushed me into the conservative mindset.
Calling the entire liberal community parasites and perverts is obviously going to piss people off, and that's trolling. This was completely unprovoked, uncalled for, and serves no purpose other than bashing liberals. Infraction issued.
Woot! Seems like we agree on police actions, Uber. Well said.
My 2 cents - the obnoxious little prick had it coming. He was obnoxious, and I don't fault the cop for anything he did. The kid's parents just need to teach him some damned respect for adults. If anything, the cop was too nice.
-ANY- adult should be respected - and this one especially, because he is an authority figure and the little prick was CLEARLY in the wrong.
EDIT: I love how sensationalist this title is. There wasn't and brutality at all in that video - the cop just gave that kid a stern talking that his parents probably never do. As the cop said - that kid's parents probably don't put their foot to his ass often enough.
It sure has - thats why you aren't my nemesis, nor is uber-mexico, nor is bryspoon. I actually enjoy arguing with you, and the stuff you post doesn't make me sick to the very core of my being.
I don't feel like arguing about drugs right now - I'm just going to leave this as no.
Its a standard of mine - I don't do drugs, and I don't associate with people that do.
EDIT: Not to mention, that if it is a drug, then it automatically has to affect your brain, and therefore always has the potential to cause harm.
Eat a living person is... disgusting. Not to mention that, in the situation that I was describing, removing an arm would probably result in death anyways. The very thought of eating part of a live person, consenting or not, just disgusts me.
You probably would
I am socially conservative to a point, and I believe that highly deviant beliefs should be suppressed, not exalted :/
Then again, I am campaigning for homosexuality to be put back into the DSM V
I consider most of the people IN debate my nemesis - just check my sig. However, you have demonstrated too much class to fall into that category, sorry
Drugs: hell no, ever. I don't see the point of risking physical and mental harm for jollies - there are easier, cheaper, and better ways to have fun.
Eat people: A dead person, yes. A live person - NEVER. However, I assume that this eating a person would occur in a situation like being stranded on a deserted island or something, because I would never do so if my own life weren't in dire danger.
Killing people - Only if i believe that they are a detriment to everyone - people who have thoughts and beliefs like Sakura, EvilDuck, SetAbominae, ect (no offense, its easier than describing it) fall into this category. To be more specific - I wouldn't go shoot them, but if an opportunity presented itself (i.e. a car was coming down the street and they didn't notice) I wouldn't do anything to prevent it. I guess this is my evil side :/
How did you think saying you would want to kill 4 members would be appropriate?
Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they don't deserve to live.
Good luck killing 50+% of the United States, buddy.
Flame infraction issued.
But the point is that WMDs deter from that kind of war every happening - not that they would ever be used in one.
I am just... hoping that they ban you soon. To claim that it is anything less than pure idiocy to use such a weapon is idiotic in itself. If anyone were to ever launch one at, say, the united states, we would find him, imprison him, and erase him and anything he holds dear to himself in the most obscene way possible.
So... you admit that WMDs result in less bloody conflicts. Ok. The rest of anything you say will be ignored, as your statements have clearly proven that you can't possibly be anything other than a 12 year old on meth.
No, we don't. There is no actual looming threat of overpopulation, as we have time and time again devised ways to get around nature's shortcomings. Remember back when people were nomads? A tribe of 50 was bordering on overpopulation. Suddenly - gasp! - they invented farming, and the sustainable population limit went up. This will continue to happen as long as humans exist - our ability to adapt and improvise IS reason that we are at the top.