I have a Mimic Vat with Precursor Golem imprinted, and Parallel Lives on the battlefield. So my Mimic Vat makes 2 Precursor Golem tokens, and then each of those make 4 Golem tokens?
If this set is just about Bacon and Dinosaurs, I'll be very disappointed.
Bacon, Dinosaurs and Hot Sauce, then WotC will finally get some of my money!
I heard Bacon, Dinosaurs, Hot Sauce was the 2015 block. I'm interested in seeing what kind of twist they put in Hot Sauce.
OT, I think the intertwining of Liliana, Sorin, and the Baron is just too awesome, from a flavor standpoint. As much as I want it to be true, there's just so many good cases why they wouldn't bring Homelands back right after they brought Mirrodin back.
The vast majority of campaign spending is done by candidates and political parties. Over the past year, the Democrats, most of whom are incumbents, have been raising and spending far more than the Republicans.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Democrats in the most competitive House races have raised an average of 47 percent more than Republicans. They have spent 66 percent more, and have about 53 percent more in their war chests. According to the Wesleyan Media Project, between Sept. 1 and Oct. 7, Democrats running for the House and the Senate spent $1.50 on advertising for every $1 spent by Republicans....
It is true that Republicans have an edge when it comes to outside expenditures. This year, for example, the United States Chamber of Commerce is spending $22 million for Republicans, while the Service Employees International Union is spending about $14 million for Democrats.
But independent spending is about only a tenth of spending by candidates and parties. Democrats have a healthy fear of Karl Rove, born out of experience, but there is no way the $13 million he influences through the group American Crossroads is going to reshape an election in which the two parties are spending something like $1.4 billion collectively.
This article from WSJ, written just days later, points out that while the C of C may have spent more then SEIU, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union was the largest private political spender in the 2010 elections.
I loved this deck pre-rotation, and still have a soft spot for it.
That said, what is the plan for this deck when Destructive Force becomes a real deck? I've seen a number of builds trying to break it. Seems like if it resolves, your Emeria plan is out the window and you're left with a weenie deck with sub-par weenies and no pump effects.
Its hardly coercion. If you are the type of person who would not want your organs donated for some reason(I'm not sure why), then opt out.
So, your position is that every individual will know exactly how this law works, and know how to opt-out? Do you believe that every single individual that opts-out will have their wishes adhered to? That language barriers and poor education won't in any way lead to people being exploited by the government?
You still keep dodging. Why do we need to do this when education will suffice? Why not allow an individual to sell their organs, creating a positive incentive to join donation lists and creating a sudden abundance in the number of organs available for transplant?
If I can't get you to understand that even the act of going through the system in order to opt-out is coerced, an action I do not want to do but am being made to do by government, then we're sort of at an impasse.
This is the problem with strictly following libertarian ideals. Instead of being pragmatic and saving lives, you are willing to let thousands die so that some misplaced principles are satisfied.
Thousands of lives would be saved, by people willing to act instead of being forced to, if the government would release it's restrictions on sale of organs. Right now, people don't donate because there is no reason for them to, they have no incentive. Your ideal is that people would care for one another enough to sign up, and that's fine, but the 13% statistic you quoted earlier proves that idealism isn't enough. Your position, then, is that we need even more restriction, more government action on our lives, in order to solve a problem. My position is that government is creating the problem in the first place. This is the problem with following large government, pro-authoritarian ideals -- you cannot see or estimate the unintended consequences of government action done in the interest of "protecting" people, and your solutions are almost exclusively "more government action" which just relentlessly continues the cycle.
I think it is pretty clear that most Americans would be organ donors. We need to make the system better to make it easier to get the largest amount of donors.
Even if this is true, it does not necessarily lead to "the government should have explicit rights to take organs from you if you do not explicitly tell them no."
The government can't just do things just because we didn't say no.
Instead of educating people about why they should donate and helping them to sign up willingly, your position is that the government should be allowed to do it through coercion and use of force. The statistic you quoted, no matter how valid, does not require coercion to fix. Why, then, do we need it?
I like your ends. They are just and noble. I hate your means. They assume the government owns my body by default, and I have to take special action with the state in order to protect my own body.
My problem is not with giving up my organs after death. I'm dead after all, the organs mean nothing to me. My problem is similar to my problem with the death penalty - government makes mistakes. I'm not talking about intentional, malicious mistakes, but just errors of paperwork and bureaucracy.
The thing that scares me the most is that this creates incentives to let me die, and people act based on incentives.
I ask you: if organ donation is such an important issue, why is it that the government bans people from selling organs like kidneys? In the US we already have markets for blood, semen, human eggs, and surrogate wombs. The big issue here to me is consent. There's way more consent in a system where the individual chooses rather than one where the choice is made by default and people have to take special action in order to nullify that default.
I'm not as good at making this point as other libertarians that have researched and written far more than me on this point. The folks at Reason have written several good articles, hereareafew.
All semantics aside, would anyone describe a deck built to win as fast as humanly possible as appropriate for "casual"?
Why is it hilarious? There's no disputing the deck is good, but how you can conceivably say that RDW belongs in the casual play area is beyond me. If players in the competitive areas don't even want to play a particular T1 deck, maybe that would lead you to believe that it's not exactly a good fit for the casual area.
As I said in previous comments, your definition of casual is not my definition, since the word "casual" means so little.
I have a Kiln Fiend deck. It wouldn't last long in TP. But it can kill turn 3 or 4. So I'm not allowed to play it anywhere? Same with my 4C Superfriends - it's never going to go anywhere but I want to play with all these planeswalkers in one deck. But since my deck has some money rares, same thing - I'm not allowed to play it anywhere?
I find it hilarious because there's always RDW. And it's always trying to compete. But there's something about the Red strategy that is both terribly aggressive, so not good for "casual", but also shunned by the tournament community as being too casual. Where's a guy gotta go in MTGO to sling some bolts?!
I see an undo consquence to this. Most of their wealth is wrapped up in stocks, bonds, and other investments.
they don't actually carry that kind of money around or have it sitting in the bank.
in order to do what they want they will have to cash out large portions of their holdings. this could wreck the financial industry in a sell off that large.
more so if all the major players do it at the same time. it could send the financial world even more out of control.
the consquences of good intentions.
Not necessarily true. I'm no expert at this stuff, but my guess is that they would transfer the actual stock through some sort of charitable trust. Depending on the stock, the trust can then sell off in small amounts over time, or sometimes just take funds from the dividends rather than reinvest. To the recipient, it's much like a fixed term annuity or a perpetuity - just like a fixed paycheck that keeps coming in annually or something like that.
what if these people find their netdeck (I'm assuming this word's gonna encompass brews that use actually good cards too :rolleyes:) fun? you can't dictate what someone can and can't use unless it's your venue, and your fun might not be the definition of someone else's.
Exactly what I was saying. Not to mention that I can make a homebrew with several hundred dollars worth of cards, and still be yelled at by "Casual" players even though it's not a netdeck. Murderdog's definition of casual is "not a netdeck", but that is not my definition, and thus we are two people hanging out in the casual room, thinking we're playing casual when neither of us is according to the other.
Also, I find RDW to be hilarious in this context. According to some casual players, it's too much for casual. But Tournament Practice often has individuals with matches that say "Tier 1 only, no RDW". Or you'll play a card like Howling Mine, which has uses in RDW sometimes, and get called a noob and sent back to the casual room.
The only thing I gathered from reading 3 pages of this thread is that there is no definition of either "casual" or "tournament practice". Everybody wants it to be what they play, and not what other people play. "Casual" is the worst word in all of MTG, because it simultaneously describes the guy playing with his deck cobbled from all 4 boosters he has in his collection, as well as the guy playing Lotus-Channel-Fireball. Academy is banned, so it's not tournament, so therefore it's casual, right?
I second others in this thread: if you don't like what you're playing against, concede. There is absolutely nothing to lose - you actually stand to lose more (time) if you keep playing. If you don't want to get into that situation, start your own game, and in the description explain what you do or do not want to play against. Then quit if someone doesn't listen.
I want to go to there. Sundial of the Infinite for the lulz.
Beast Within my own perm for 2 3/3 beasts seems good.
If I attack with Hero of Bladehold, I assume all 4 tokens are tapped and attacking?
I heard Bacon, Dinosaurs, Hot Sauce was the 2015 block. I'm interested in seeing what kind of twist they put in Hot Sauce.
OT, I think the intertwining of Liliana, Sorin, and the Baron is just too awesome, from a flavor standpoint. As much as I want it to be true, there's just so many good cases why they wouldn't bring Homelands back right after they brought Mirrodin back.
David Brooks' excellent article in NYT about how little campaign spending matters in elections:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/opinion/19brooks.html?_r=1
This article from WSJ, written just days later, points out that while the C of C may have spent more then SEIU, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union was the largest private political spender in the 2010 elections.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
So, if you're still wondering, the answer to your question is "the Unions".
That said, what is the plan for this deck when Destructive Force becomes a real deck? I've seen a number of builds trying to break it. Seems like if it resolves, your Emeria plan is out the window and you're left with a weenie deck with sub-par weenies and no pump effects.
So, your position is that every individual will know exactly how this law works, and know how to opt-out? Do you believe that every single individual that opts-out will have their wishes adhered to? That language barriers and poor education won't in any way lead to people being exploited by the government?
You still keep dodging. Why do we need to do this when education will suffice? Why not allow an individual to sell their organs, creating a positive incentive to join donation lists and creating a sudden abundance in the number of organs available for transplant?
If I can't get you to understand that even the act of going through the system in order to opt-out is coerced, an action I do not want to do but am being made to do by government, then we're sort of at an impasse.
Thousands of lives would be saved, by people willing to act instead of being forced to, if the government would release it's restrictions on sale of organs. Right now, people don't donate because there is no reason for them to, they have no incentive. Your ideal is that people would care for one another enough to sign up, and that's fine, but the 13% statistic you quoted earlier proves that idealism isn't enough. Your position, then, is that we need even more restriction, more government action on our lives, in order to solve a problem. My position is that government is creating the problem in the first place. This is the problem with following large government, pro-authoritarian ideals -- you cannot see or estimate the unintended consequences of government action done in the interest of "protecting" people, and your solutions are almost exclusively "more government action" which just relentlessly continues the cycle.
Even if this is true, it does not necessarily lead to "the government should have explicit rights to take organs from you if you do not explicitly tell them no."
The government can't just do things just because we didn't say no.
Instead of educating people about why they should donate and helping them to sign up willingly, your position is that the government should be allowed to do it through coercion and use of force. The statistic you quoted, no matter how valid, does not require coercion to fix. Why, then, do we need it?
My problem is not with giving up my organs after death. I'm dead after all, the organs mean nothing to me. My problem is similar to my problem with the death penalty - government makes mistakes. I'm not talking about intentional, malicious mistakes, but just errors of paperwork and bureaucracy.
The thing that scares me the most is that this creates incentives to let me die, and people act based on incentives.
I ask you: if organ donation is such an important issue, why is it that the government bans people from selling organs like kidneys? In the US we already have markets for blood, semen, human eggs, and surrogate wombs. The big issue here to me is consent. There's way more consent in a system where the individual chooses rather than one where the choice is made by default and people have to take special action in order to nullify that default.
I'm not as good at making this point as other libertarians that have researched and written far more than me on this point. The folks at Reason have written several good articles, here are a few.
As I said in previous comments, your definition of casual is not my definition, since the word "casual" means so little.
I have a Kiln Fiend deck. It wouldn't last long in TP. But it can kill turn 3 or 4. So I'm not allowed to play it anywhere? Same with my 4C Superfriends - it's never going to go anywhere but I want to play with all these planeswalkers in one deck. But since my deck has some money rares, same thing - I'm not allowed to play it anywhere?
I find it hilarious because there's always RDW. And it's always trying to compete. But there's something about the Red strategy that is both terribly aggressive, so not good for "casual", but also shunned by the tournament community as being too casual. Where's a guy gotta go in MTGO to sling some bolts?!
Not necessarily true. I'm no expert at this stuff, but my guess is that they would transfer the actual stock through some sort of charitable trust. Depending on the stock, the trust can then sell off in small amounts over time, or sometimes just take funds from the dividends rather than reinvest. To the recipient, it's much like a fixed term annuity or a perpetuity - just like a fixed paycheck that keeps coming in annually or something like that.
Exactly what I was saying. Not to mention that I can make a homebrew with several hundred dollars worth of cards, and still be yelled at by "Casual" players even though it's not a netdeck. Murderdog's definition of casual is "not a netdeck", but that is not my definition, and thus we are two people hanging out in the casual room, thinking we're playing casual when neither of us is according to the other.
Also, I find RDW to be hilarious in this context. According to some casual players, it's too much for casual. But Tournament Practice often has individuals with matches that say "Tier 1 only, no RDW". Or you'll play a card like Howling Mine, which has uses in RDW sometimes, and get called a noob and sent back to the casual room.
I second others in this thread: if you don't like what you're playing against, concede. There is absolutely nothing to lose - you actually stand to lose more (time) if you keep playing. If you don't want to get into that situation, start your own game, and in the description explain what you do or do not want to play against. Then quit if someone doesn't listen.
It's just a matter of communication.