You want an honest discussion? When did you prove your initial point that "She picked specific sources. She obviously did not sort through data?"
You didn't and you can't. It isn't provable. Maybe she did; maybe she didn't. You provided no evidence, because you could not, and resorted to an ad hominem - she didn't do her do diligence and the quote she chose to use overstates her position.
You lost before we even began because you have proven since you joined these boards that you do not want an "honest discussion." You want to be right. So, enjoy thinking that you are right when so many know you are not, goodnight.
I do not need to be proven correct, I know I already know I am.
- shows that trying to have a discussion with you is fruitless. So, have your goal post shift. After all, proof of a fallacy proves you're right, right? /sarcasm
The quote does not assert that there wasn't negative impact only that the positive outweighs the negative. Your statements are broad. Look at your quoted section again. It is specific.
As to Googling, I have no interest in attempting to prove you correct. It is your job to provide proof. For now I will assume that you cannot prove your statement and therefore the statement from the published document stands.
Funny. I have to refute the study. I think the person who presented should have to defend it. BTW: I do not need to be proven correct, I know I already know I am. You just need to spend 10 second on Google and you will find how absurd that statement is.
Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household. http://cis.org/High-Cost-of-Cheap-Labor
A source that sets out to prove a stance (not very scientific!) that has had quite a bit of controversy attached to it. Not really a peer-reviewed source to add to your "voluminous" list. But, hey, you probably like them because they already know they are right, just like you!
The quote does not assert that there wasn't negative impact only that the positive outweighs the negative. Your statements are broad. Look at your quoted section again. It is specific.
As to Googling, I have no interest in attempting to prove you correct. It is your job to provide proof. For now I will assume that you cannot prove your statement and therefore the statement from the published document stands.
I'm almost certain you did not read it. The entire piece is nothing but assertions and references to other peoples work and claims.
Um, that's the exact definition of science. Sort through data from various sources, and present the best supported conclusion.
She picked specific sources. She obviously did not sort through data.
It's not obvious to me. Please explain.
You seriously want me to cite the voluminous amount of data that she did not reference or cite or acknowledge? The only reason that "study" was linked, was to support a narrative someone was pushing. It has no value. Seriously, read it, do not just blindly agree with it, then subsequently defend it. Again, I'm fairly liberal when it comes to immigration, that piece is worthless for constructive discussion.
EDIT:
In the first paragraph:
Many Americans believe that undocumented immigrants are exploiting the United States economy. The widespread belief is that “illegal aliens” cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. This belief is demonstrably false. Every empirical study of illegals’ economic impact demonstrates the opposite.
That is demonstrably incorrect. She ignored the voluminous amount of empirical evidence that shows the opposite. I mean, if she provided any sort of indication she studied that data, maybe it would have some value, but no where in her regurgitation of cherry picked facts does she even cite, acknowledge or address that data.
It is interesting that you used the very word - "voluminous" - that the footnote contained. Also, while you didn't show it, the author was quoting that line from a prior source. I have yet to come across anything that supports your assertion which is logically the reverse of the authors: illegal aliens cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. Below is the Cato Institutes take. As a conservative award winning think tank the fact that they support the author's view is reason to ask you for some "voluminous" sources. Say five peer reviewed ones? Cato Institute article; see Myth 4: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/cutting-immigration-myths-down-size
I can not believe anyone actually read that study and came away thinking anything other than the author was asserting a premise while cherry picking facts to support it, and I have a fairly liberal viewpoint on immigration. I would not classify it as a "study" either.
I get the feeling that you only looked at the abstract and also that you don't read many studies if you don't feel that one is a study.
I'm almost certain you did not read it. The entire piece is nothing but assertions and references to other peoples work and claims.
Um, that's the exact definition of science. Sort through data from various sources, and present the best supported conclusion.
She picked specific sources. She obviously did not sort through data.
Dude may be a pro, but he is wrong. The percentages don't lie. We would have to draw the CM, discard the Lightning Blast, and then have our opponent top-deck an answer that makes us feel bad about discarding the blast. Creature removal doesn't do it. That's parity. I would always take that chance. Bounce or enchantment removal are the only outs that could lead to regret. Which is an emotion! I get that there is a possibility that looting goes bad. However, the odds that we improve our draws by looting are much greater and, combined with that, the odds that we regret the loot are tiny. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!
I'm confused. Where do you get 50% from? By my count, the deck has 26 cards left and the only one we would keep over Lightning Blast is Control Magic. Say you loot and discard a shock and then draw a land next turn. So what? You loot, and, assuming you miss CM, shoot the angel. With both of you in top deck mode drawing two cards a turn must be making your hand better than 50% better...right?
I guess alternative decks for Weatherlight can be explored, although it's one of those sets that are so bad, no one would want to invest time on them
Funny you should say that...
I think a base green multicolor deck is possible with Veteran Explorer plus Gemstone Mine. However, I cannot find a reason to go three color. The original BoTS deck was U/W IIRC. Might be worth looking back on. How about G/R? It might mise some wins:
Obviously, this is very rough and is definitely still terrible. Is it more or less terrible, thought? Humorously it would have likely done worse in the Prophecy matchup because of all the taxing cards. Anyway, I considered a singleton Bosium Strip; it might be worth a try. I also tried to make Orcish Settler work. It is sloooow. Cone of Flame and Dense Foliage are possibilities, I guess. You should re-consider Null Rod. Hoping for the, unlikely, lucky matchup where it is solid might be the best Weatherlight can do.
Re: Firestorm. Goldfishing with this deck I many times discarded something akin to a land, a Hurloon Shaman, and a Thundermare for 3 Lightning Bolts. 4 cards for three bolts isn't so very bad when you consider the very little the set has to offer! I know that Firestorm historically set up reanimator, but you can discard anything and most Weatherlight cards are best when not played! Anyway, thanks again for bringing back BoTS!
Yeah, Weatherlight is pretty bad. It could be argued that having the Straw Golem go to the graveyard is not *that* bad, considering the way the deck works with creatures in its own graveyard, but still, it remains a suboptimal creature. I don't know if there's anything better, though.
Well, if it wants dudes in the yard, Firestorm is a "power" card from the set, and there is no need to be mono-black. It could easily be B/r.
Regarding the Guildpact vs AR matchup, I meant that he blocked the Kaessig Malcontents (that were a 4/2 due to the angel) with the two bats to kill it with combat damage - in that sense, Guildpact sacrificed them as blockers. I didn't mean sacrifice as actual "sacrifice" wording to activate an ability
Two things: should Weatherlight be modified, because Straw Golem is just terrible in modern times? Second, in game 2 of Guildpact V. Avacyn Restored you sacced 2 bats with Angel of Jubilation in play. Mistake in game play or transcription?
Having the tutors at mythic is nice. Less chance to open them in draft where you'd be almost forced to take them for value when they suck in limited.
How bad is two copies of your bomb? The ability to search for a bomb, removal, or a land to get out of color or mana screw? Vamp Tutor still seems solid in limited.
That's an argument we refer to as "not worth $10"
I'm confused. The card is currently around $30, right? It is solid in limited. I'd be very happy if it were a rare... if it was in my deck.
The Dictate may be rising because Saffron Olive over on MTGGolfish suggested it as a good long-term investment to buy into as it is a casual card that is unlikely to be reprinted (soon). That could drive a small spike.
You didn't and you can't. It isn't provable. Maybe she did; maybe she didn't. You provided no evidence, because you could not, and resorted to an ad hominem - she didn't do her do diligence and the quote she chose to use overstates her position.
You lost before we even began because you have proven since you joined these boards that you do not want an "honest discussion." You want to be right. So, enjoy thinking that you are right when so many know you are not, goodnight.
'Course, your source isn't even liked by conservatives: http://www.cato.org/blog/center-immigration-studies-exaggerates-immigrant-welfare-use
The rest of what you have said - For example: - shows that trying to have a discussion with you is fruitless. So, have your goal post shift. After all, proof of a fallacy proves you're right, right? /sarcasm
Edit: didn't catch your edit; yup, it is trash!
Funny, the study defends itself; seeing as it has copious references and is from a peer-reviewed source: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/taxation/publications/tax_lawyer_home.html
A source that sets out to prove a stance (not very scientific!) that has had quite a bit of controversy attached to it. Not really a peer-reviewed source to add to your "voluminous" list. But, hey, you probably like them because they already know they are right, just like you!
As to Googling, I have no interest in attempting to prove you correct. It is your job to provide proof. For now I will assume that you cannot prove your statement and therefore the statement from the published document stands.
It is interesting that you used the very word - "voluminous" - that the footnote contained. Also, while you didn't show it, the author was quoting that line from a prior source. I have yet to come across anything that supports your assertion which is logically the reverse of the authors: illegal aliens cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. Below is the Cato Institutes take. As a conservative award winning think tank the fact that they support the author's view is reason to ask you for some "voluminous" sources. Say five peer reviewed ones? Cato Institute article; see Myth 4: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/cutting-immigration-myths-down-size
It's not obvious to me. Please explain.
Funny you should say that...
I think a base green multicolor deck is possible with Veteran Explorer plus Gemstone Mine. However, I cannot find a reason to go three color. The original BoTS deck was U/W IIRC. Might be worth looking back on. How about G/R? It might mise some wins:
15 Forest
10 Mountain
3 Firestorm
4 Rogue Elephant
4 Harvest Wurm
4 Mind Stone
4 Serrated Biskelion
4 Thunderbolt
4 Hurloon Shaman
4 Fallow Wurm
4 Thundermare
Obviously, this is very rough and is definitely still terrible. Is it more or less terrible, thought? Humorously it would have likely done worse in the Prophecy matchup because of all the taxing cards. Anyway, I considered a singleton Bosium Strip; it might be worth a try. I also tried to make Orcish Settler work. It is sloooow. Cone of Flame and Dense Foliage are possibilities, I guess. You should re-consider Null Rod. Hoping for the, unlikely, lucky matchup where it is solid might be the best Weatherlight can do.
Re: Firestorm. Goldfishing with this deck I many times discarded something akin to a land, a Hurloon Shaman, and a Thundermare for 3 Lightning Bolts. 4 cards for three bolts isn't so very bad when you consider the very little the set has to offer! I know that Firestorm historically set up reanimator, but you can discard anything and most Weatherlight cards are best when not played! Anyway, thanks again for bringing back BoTS!
Maybe change to chump-blocked?
Two things: should Weatherlight be modified, because Straw Golem is just terrible in modern times? Second, in game 2 of Guildpact V. Avacyn Restored you sacced 2 bats with Angel of Jubilation in play. Mistake in game play or transcription?
I'm confused. The card is currently around $30, right? It is solid in limited. I'd be very happy if it were a rare... if it was in my deck.