Police departments have long enjoyed the power to unilaterally seize arbitrary amounts of money from random people on the mere suspicion of drug-related activity.
It's clearly a huge problem, and leads to unbelievable corruption.
There was a case a few years ago where a trucker had $24,000 seized from his truck, after it was searched merely because he had cash in excess of $10k on him. They found no evidence of any drug-related activity, and he was never charged with anything. He was told that he would have to prove the money was not drug-related in order to get it back.
Sounds like guilty until proven innocent to me.
Agreed, and that's contrary to the entire idea behind the US justice system. I understand that the ability to seize funds that may be involved in criminal operations is essential for shutting criminals down, but it needs to be regulated much more heavily. The problem comes in just how regulated it should be. If we make it too restricted, it becomes useless as a tool against criminals. If it's too unregulated, as it is now, it's a tool for corruption. It's a fine line to walk.
Leaving us? Wait just a moment, if you would. It's finals for college kids, and the last clan contest didn't quite bring us together, as many people here don't play EDH. I think we should wait before calling it quits, though I admittedly, have been very busy lately.
I either mispoke or you misinterpreted my point. I didn't mean to say that the drug cartels have some form of secret word or plan to have all the immigrants fight America the second we stick our nose in their business. My point was that if America tried to mobilize troops into Mexico in order to quell the Drug Cartel problem, millions of illegal immigrants would vehemently oppose the United States going into their country because many of their family members probably ARE in the drug cartels, or at the very least would be in the crossfire.
Very similar to how Afghanistan and Iraq's normal citizens were opposed to any sort of military presence, even if the Military was there to take out the Taliban/Saddam instead of them. There was still a heavy distrust of American military, and I don't see a difference with Mexico right now.
Oh, okay, yeah there was some breakdown in communications. I agree that there would be civil trouble that would no doubt prove inimical to our efforts to bring the situation under control in Mexico, but I think it is surmountable.
This is my theory on what will happen if there is any spill over and the U.S. is STILL out across the world playing world cop.
Arizona State Militia. They'll re-inforce the border themselves. People seen sneaking across will be considered enemies of the state and shot first as military targets. They might not get many drug runners, but they sure will cause a stir.
Yes, the kind of stir that would enrage Mexican citizens and immigrants further and raise tensions. The problem has to be dealt with eventually, and putting it off only allows the cartels time to gain even more power.
Why would they make a rule if it wasn't ment to be broken? HAHA MY LOGIC JUST KILLED YOUR LOGIC LIKE A KNIFE THROUGH COLD DIAMOND :p.
So that the broken rule could be mended afterward. People are always making more trouble for themselves...
Anywho, just read how the whole thing went down. That's a shame, but since it's a contest I gotta side with Weaver. Don't worry, though, Reya--House Dimir will have its revenge. As to how we're going to do that, I have no idea, but I suspect that me not having any idea is in fact a part of a larger plan that I already came up with ahead of time. That's how I kinda drift through life, at least, and it's worked pretty well so far.
Isn't there something that the normal citizens can do like, what's it called...recall or whatever? Whatever they did to Governor Gray Davis in California all those years ago to get Arnold in. If it's plain as day that the Republicans are going to REFUSE to get anything done, and sit on their million dollar paydays while the rest of Middle America dies due to a new depression because they refuse to fix it, can't we recall the votes and kick our representatives out of congress?
I... I agree with Kraken. Wow. I don't think that's ever happened before...
I'd say they are a drug state by proxy. Their military, police force and government are all incapable of taking care of the drug lords. None of their supposed "allies" seem to have any interest in giving them a helping hand either. The drug lords have slaughtered hundreds of people who have tried to oppose them. The police can't stand up to them. Entire news broadcasts and journalists have been murdered and replaced by people who will bow to the druglords superior regime. And they are the ones who call the shots, make the money, and rule the roost.
So the state is still in some measure of control. It's only under control of Al Pacino and friends instead of an actual government head.
Yeah, I can see what you're saying here. It's not out of control; it's a matter of who has control. But that being said, a failed state is one whose government has lost control over large portions of its territory. As the Drug Cartels are not a government, I'd classify Mexico as a failed state.
It's not like America is capable of helping out anyway. The second we try to do anything significant to help out Mexico then that will trigger the "riot alarm" for the millions of illegal immigrants we have in the country to rise up and slaughter millions more innocent American lives before we even have a chance at mobilizing.
I don't believe that the Drug Cartels have a sophisticated logistical system to arm these millions of Mexican immigrants to 'slaughter millions more innocent American lives'. Would people with opinions such as your own become xenophobic? Yes, and the tension generated that way would probably lead to some rioting and civil disorder, but you're suggesting that the first response of Mexican immigrants would be 'KILL THE AMERICANS', when I think it would be more along the lines of, "Holy crap... I'd better go make sure my family's okay."
To even consider that possibility is ridiculous, but I'll humor you--do you think a large number of unarmed Mexican men with families they want to protect will be able to battle against the armed forces of the United States?
I think this is good for our country's progress, actually--not the Republicans; they're a plague on human advancement and decency in general--but the outing of the Republicans as these obstructionists. A lot of the turmoil of the last election came because people expected the Democrats to magically fix the economy, and when they couldn't completely revitalize the country in under two years, the people, being impatient, elected the Republicans, hoping that they could fix the economy instead. When they see that the Republicans are not only getting nothing done, but in fact keeping the Democrats from accomplishing anything, I can only hope that the American people will once again rally behind the Democrats. That popularity would help in the long run in keeping control of the White House. When the economy does recover under his administration (simply due to timing and the long lag between recession and prosperity), it'll give the Democrats even more support, which would allow another Democrat president to ride in on his coattails.
Of course, that's the best-case situation, because if the Tea Partiers and Republicans get their agenda implemented, it probably won't be long before we have another violent revolution.
Adult screws himself for life by assualting an 8 year old. Dumb dumb dumb.
Just like it requires you to drink to get a DUI, this dude commited a crime because he was triple dumb:
1. He drank enough to get drunk by the end of the 3rd quarter. Don't get a drunk on at a sporting event. Bad idea.
2. He mainted his 'drunk-on' through the end of the game.
3. He attacked a child because he was drunk and couldn't filter "good idea" from "bad idea".
I second that motion to change the title.
I don't think it's ever acceptable to beat up an eight-year-old kid (granted I don't think it's acceptable to beat up most people), but I wouldn't really blame the NFL for what happened. That man should not have been drinking. The fact that he went after a small child is the detail that makes this story newsworthy, but there are many unreported stories of people fighting at sporting events because they're drunk. I'd agree with bLatch on the order of blame. The 'loyalty' was just the means of selecting his victim.
First of all, it was I who said that. Second, we generally know when a crime has been committed: there's a dead body, or some money is missing, or what-have you. The question is who committed it. If an eyewitness says that they saw Anne do it, and Anne had means, motive, and opportunity, then there are two possibilities: that Anne really did it; or Anne didn't do it, and someone else also had means, motive, and opportunity. Given what we know, the second scenario is more unlikely. Of course, if the defense can produce a good solid second suspect, our knowledge changes and therefore our estimates of the probability do as well. But they can't just say, "You think you saw Anne do it, but change blindness means your testimony is worthless."
Sorry for quoting the wrong person.
What I'm trying to say is, while objectively one of those must be true, people have a very skewed perspective. They don't have all the facts, and they're likely to accept testimony as fact in place of objective evidence. They lend eye witness testimony too much weight, and they decide who is telling the truth based on characteristics like attractiveness and age, that really have nothing to do with the trustworthiness of the witness.
For a combo, there's also Hinder + Tunnel Vision, but I'm sure there's plenty of Eldrazi running around.
I agree though, a few combos in the same deck offer some variety and obviously fun times.
Welcome back, DnD. Sick combo, btw.
Sorry I haven't been contributing more to the EDH development. I've been playing mainly Standard mainly, so my memory of older cards, and especially older combos is faded.
As an EDH question, when someone plays their general, does it count as 'casting' that general? Can we counter it? I know that removing it from the battlefield for any reason exiles it back to its sacred little bunker.
I agree completely! I just had to because I couldn't do both the bush tax cuts and one of the new taxes in the final section at the same time for some reason. It was like the system wouldn't let me do both. I had to come up with the money somewhere.
I'm fully against a national sales tax. It's so wrong on so many levels, but I'm more okay with it with the bush tax cuts still in place as they are really really expensive.
And taxing the rich with a sales tax on items over, let's say, 10,000 dollars is silly, as we can just get the revenue from eliminating the bush tax cuts.
Agreed. The National Sales Tax was one of those options that I had to keep coming back to, because I wasn't sure if I agreed with it or not. I finally decided against it, because it's just too harmful to the lower class, the people who really need a break in this country. I wish the NY Times application gave more options. I would love to implement a higher graduated income tax, not just let the current cuts expire.
I was under the impression everyone knew how unreliable witness accounts can be. There have been dozens of studies in this regard. It's why many eyewitnesses can be taken apart on the witness stand. Its also why they rarely have the eyewitness identify someone during the trial, they only use that to apprehend suspects. Once it goes to trial, they have to build a case around what the witness believed they saw. The eyewitness testifies to context, not to cold hard facts, the prosecution has a responsibility to establish the facts that put the crime in the context the eyewitness set up. A case that relies exclusively on witness testimony is extremely weak.
In any case, moving away from eyewitnesses is dangerous, because then we get into Mexico's system, and paper trials. Cold hard facts can be extremely misleading without context.
Moving completely away from eyewitness testimony is definitely dangerous, but it should be tempered by empirical evidence.
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. This does not mean eye witness testimony is not credible it indicates that *most* not *all* eye witness testimony is not iron clad. That's how statistics work. You side in favor of the one more likely to be right (that eye witness testimony is iron clad).
Also: that case has nothing to do with Change Blindness. That was my first point.
You said earlier that most crimes are improbable. If we take your advice of siding with what is more likely to have happened, then we should logically conclude that no crime has taken place at all... unless of course, one of your premises is wrong.
I don't disagree with you on the fact that all things are uncertain, but most people have a very skewed understanding of probability. Fixing that might be the best way of improving our court system.
I agree with Horseshoe_Hermit on the matter of education. Improving our high school education would improve our analytical abilities as a society. If we're taught to be more discerning about the information we receive and taught to question it more deeply, the suspicions would weed out inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and leave the courts with a refined form of the truth.
The justice system should be reformed to place less weight on eye witness testimony. Not only because people can always lie, but because people do often say things that are untrue, because they believe that they are in fact correct. When it comes down to it, the human mind is not a very accurate recording device, as dcartist's first post indicates.
But as to how we could implement this improved system, I have no idea. As a social species, we rely on the words of others innately in order to make decisions. I think that people also judge honesty on pre-conceived notions about what kind of person can be trusted and what kind of person can't, while those notions are in fact not indicative of trustworthiness.
Perhaps what we must do is remove the Oath, or modify it, since the idea that people cannot lie under oath would make the jury more likely to take what was said at face value. This way we have suspicion from the start that could promote analytical evaluation of what was said.
Rather than pick pieces of the deck piece by piece shouldn't we work at it section by section to make it more efficient? Personally I don't agree with the idea of making it more swamp heavy.
In EDH you have to have each card work together well. Combo pieces are fine but they need to combo with more than just one other card because if that card suddenly disappears or isn't drawn then you have a card just sitting there not doing anything. What would going more swamp-heavy even gain?
I'm intrigued by the idea of combos in an EDH. With the huge library and only one of each card, it must require a lot of deck engineering to make anything viable. If we do go combo, we can always make use of that antiquated ability, Transmute, for which we are so famed. That would add some delicious Dimir flavor, it's already in our colors, and it is great for searching up missing combo pieces.
Agreed, and that's contrary to the entire idea behind the US justice system. I understand that the ability to seize funds that may be involved in criminal operations is essential for shutting criminals down, but it needs to be regulated much more heavily. The problem comes in just how regulated it should be. If we make it too restricted, it becomes useless as a tool against criminals. If it's too unregulated, as it is now, it's a tool for corruption. It's a fine line to walk.
Leaving us? Wait just a moment, if you would. It's finals for college kids, and the last clan contest didn't quite bring us together, as many people here don't play EDH. I think we should wait before calling it quits, though I admittedly, have been very busy lately.
But infinite minus one is still... I have no idea, actually. Um. Infinite? It's big, okay!
Nah, I don't ski. I'm
actually a lizardlike a lizard andwill feast on your offspring in the dead of nightdon't like the cold.Oh, okay, yeah there was some breakdown in communications. I agree that there would be civil trouble that would no doubt prove inimical to our efforts to bring the situation under control in Mexico, but I think it is surmountable.
Yes, the kind of stir that would enrage Mexican citizens and immigrants further and raise tensions. The problem has to be dealt with eventually, and putting it off only allows the cartels time to gain even more power.
So that the broken rule could be mended afterward. People are always making more trouble for themselves...
Anywho, just read how the whole thing went down. That's a shame, but since it's a contest I gotta side with Weaver. Don't worry, though, Reya--House Dimir will have its revenge. As to how we're going to do that, I have no idea, but I suspect that me not having any idea is in fact a part of a larger plan that I already came up with ahead of time. That's how I kinda drift through life, at least, and it's worked pretty well so far.
I... I agree with Kraken. Wow. I don't think that's ever happened before...
Yeah, I can see what you're saying here. It's not out of control; it's a matter of who has control. But that being said, a failed state is one whose government has lost control over large portions of its territory. As the Drug Cartels are not a government, I'd classify Mexico as a failed state.
I don't believe that the Drug Cartels have a sophisticated logistical system to arm these millions of Mexican immigrants to 'slaughter millions more innocent American lives'. Would people with opinions such as your own become xenophobic? Yes, and the tension generated that way would probably lead to some rioting and civil disorder, but you're suggesting that the first response of Mexican immigrants would be 'KILL THE AMERICANS', when I think it would be more along the lines of, "Holy crap... I'd better go make sure my family's okay."
To even consider that possibility is ridiculous, but I'll humor you--do you think a large number of unarmed Mexican men with families they want to protect will be able to battle against the armed forces of the United States?
Of course, that's the best-case situation, because if the Tea Partiers and Republicans get their agenda implemented, it probably won't be long before we have another violent revolution.
I second that motion to change the title.
I don't think it's ever acceptable to beat up an eight-year-old kid (granted I don't think it's acceptable to beat up most people), but I wouldn't really blame the NFL for what happened. That man should not have been drinking. The fact that he went after a small child is the detail that makes this story newsworthy, but there are many unreported stories of people fighting at sporting events because they're drunk. I'd agree with bLatch on the order of blame. The 'loyalty' was just the means of selecting his victim.
Sorry for quoting the wrong person.
What I'm trying to say is, while objectively one of those must be true, people have a very skewed perspective. They don't have all the facts, and they're likely to accept testimony as fact in place of objective evidence. They lend eye witness testimony too much weight, and they decide who is telling the truth based on characteristics like attractiveness and age, that really have nothing to do with the trustworthiness of the witness.
Welcome back, DnD. Sick combo, btw.
Sorry I haven't been contributing more to the EDH development. I've been playing mainly Standard mainly, so my memory of older cards, and especially older combos is faded.
As an EDH question, when someone plays their general, does it count as 'casting' that general? Can we counter it? I know that removing it from the battlefield for any reason exiles it back to its sacred little bunker.
Agreed. The National Sales Tax was one of those options that I had to keep coming back to, because I wasn't sure if I agreed with it or not. I finally decided against it, because it's just too harmful to the lower class, the people who really need a break in this country. I wish the NY Times application gave more options. I would love to implement a higher graduated income tax, not just let the current cuts expire.
Moving completely away from eyewitness testimony is definitely dangerous, but it should be tempered by empirical evidence.
You said earlier that most crimes are improbable. If we take your advice of siding with what is more likely to have happened, then we should logically conclude that no crime has taken place at all... unless of course, one of your premises is wrong.
I don't disagree with you on the fact that all things are uncertain, but most people have a very skewed understanding of probability. Fixing that might be the best way of improving our court system.
I agree with Horseshoe_Hermit on the matter of education. Improving our high school education would improve our analytical abilities as a society. If we're taught to be more discerning about the information we receive and taught to question it more deeply, the suspicions would weed out inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and leave the courts with a refined form of the truth.
The justice system should be reformed to place less weight on eye witness testimony. Not only because people can always lie, but because people do often say things that are untrue, because they believe that they are in fact correct. When it comes down to it, the human mind is not a very accurate recording device, as dcartist's first post indicates.
But as to how we could implement this improved system, I have no idea. As a social species, we rely on the words of others innately in order to make decisions. I think that people also judge honesty on pre-conceived notions about what kind of person can be trusted and what kind of person can't, while those notions are in fact not indicative of trustworthiness.
Perhaps what we must do is remove the Oath, or modify it, since the idea that people cannot lie under oath would make the jury more likely to take what was said at face value. This way we have suspicion from the start that could promote analytical evaluation of what was said.
I'm intrigued by the idea of combos in an EDH. With the huge library and only one of each card, it must require a lot of deck engineering to make anything viable. If we do go combo, we can always make use of that antiquated ability, Transmute, for which we are so famed. That would add some delicious Dimir flavor, it's already in our colors, and it is great for searching up missing combo pieces.