+1 for live with her for at least 6 months to a year first. When you don't live together, it's easy to gloss over the annoying habits that she's bound to have (and for her to gloss over your annoying habits). When you do, those things are unavoidable. You don't want to find out that you just cannot deal anymore after you get married.
Also +1 for don't ask her father's permission. It's traditional, but it's a truly offensive tradition. She might be ok with it, but she might not. And what if he says no? You go ahead anyway, because you're both adults and he has absolutely no say in it whatsoever, you were just putting on a show for him. Only now it's awkward and you've got a hostile relationship with your father-in-law-to-be.
- Undisputed-
- Registered User
-
Member for 16 years, 3 months, and 8 days
Last active Thu, Jan, 9 2014 09:59:18
- 1 Follower
- 874 Total Posts
- 20 Thanks
-
1
IcecreamMan80 posted a message on A Guaranteed Minimum Wage or Basic IncomeI get what you're saying billy.Posted in: Debate
Giving someone a check every month doesn't make them employable, intelligent, ambitious, responsible, or give them strong work ethic, morals, valuable skills, etc.
Giving people money solves only one problem - being broke.
It's up to the person getting the money to solve their other problems. To look for work, get an education, find a personal goal to strive for, be sober, be desirable to employers, gain interview skills, and trade skills to go with it...
Now, many people who fall on hard times and get government assistance DO have those qualities and eventually get off assistance.
But to ignore that hundreds of thousands of people DON'T and just grow accustomed to sucking the governments tit...that's just blind naivety.
Welfare has never solved poverty, and never will. I'd argue all it has done is institutionalize living in poverty. -
1
Surging Chaos posted a message on Fear of SocialismPosted in: DebateQuote from IllinestNow what DO we have? We have a society that is so fearful of "socialism" that we are paralyzed by that fear. Capitalism requires interventions. If you aren't willing to let the government intervene against corporations then you end up with corporations whose interests become disproportionately large.
Corporations are state-created entities. They are basically business that receive favorable treatment from the state through a number of ways (subsidies, bailouts, regulating competition away, etc.). It's more along the lines of fascism than it is capitalism.
Let's assume a corporation gets disproportionately large. In a free market, anyone can create a company that competes with the mega-corporation. This means the mega-corporation has to stay on top of things or they'll lose customers to the competitors. However, government regulations and red tape keep competitors from flourishing because they lack the resources necessary to stay compliant. When the government squashes potential startups and business that could compete with corporations, the end result is gigantic businesses that most people tend to refer to as corporations.
This is my biggest problem with discussions about capitialism. People constantly confuse "crony capitalism" as being actual free-market capitalism, when the two concepts are very different. -
1
Ljoss posted a message on Un-American?Posted in: DebateQuote from IceCreamMan80 »
We're not talking about flying things at my house. This was a flag pole at a state building.
That's an important distinction, of course. Whether it's the rainbow flag or Molon Labe or Gadsden, it does seem presumptuous.
Quote from void_nothingThe Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state, not the separation of politics and state. A state by definition does nothing but politics. The state of Oregon has chosen to identify that its policies are for the freedom of all adults to love and marry whom they choose, which is a valid thing to yoke to the American flag.
Ask your mother if she wishes America to be a "Christian nation" then would she rather it become similar to Iran, a nation that is explicitly Islamic. She'll get a kick out of that one.
If you guys can compare Christianity in America to Islam in Iran, then I think I should be able to get away with my "modern day Sweden = Soviet Russia" comparisons. -
2
Ljoss posted a message on The Copper King, The Koch Brothers, and the 28th AmendmentPosted in: DebateQuote from IWasteMoneyOnCardboardHey wow the guy from Belgium has a better idea of what democracy is.
You need a definition? It exists. Democracy isn't a vague term.
Democracy n. 1.government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Heres a definition. Bolded is the answer to your question.
Hooray for books!
In a country of 313 million, one person has supreme power. You're really concerned about the people being disempowered, so your way of dealing with that is limiting the amount of influence money can have in the selection of that one person that has supreme power over the other 313 million. Is that right? -
2
Mild Wongrel posted a message on Why is Standard so great?Standard isnt that great. Its not bad necessarily. But really the only draw to it is its easy to get into if you are new to magic and it keeps wotc alive (financially). I also see the interest/skill/challenge in having a format that changes so rapidly, but playing standard competitively is far to expensive and time consuming of me. And yes, thats right competitive standard is FAR more expensive than competitive legacy. You can buy one 1000$ deck and 10-100$ a year to upgrade your deck in legacy. Or you can spend 250$ twice a year as the format constantly changes.Posted in: Magic General
I also am not a fan of the fact that there is little room for off-beat strategies. Standard you have have aggro and midrange creature decks, and creature light control decks. Looking at legacy by comparison you have combo, control, midrange, aggro, tempo, and wacky decks with zero lands or 40 lands.
There is a lot of ignorance about eternal formats in this thread.
Quote from Nev
Eternal formats also create more casual curbstomping. The guy who has all the staples will almost always steamroll the guy with the cheap scrubby deck. Having all the standard staples requires you to keep going off to get them. It takes more effort (and yes, it does fund Wizards) but it means that no one is just going to autohave them for all time. Also, more offbeat strategies tend to be able to go toe to toe with them than in an eternal format in my opinion.
The irony of this statement is that one of the most expensive and arguably "the best" legacy deck right now is Shardless BUG. It cost over 3000$ to build. One of its worst matchups is mono-red, 100$ Burn.
Quote from mrisaiahcbut other formats like legacy all have the same deck. every player i know in legacy has the same deck deck. standard outshines everythin else except EDH because cards rotate and a the same bull**** isnt in every deck
What I gathered from this gibberish is that every legacy plays the same deck. There are over 40 viable archetypes in legacy and your average top 16 has 14 different decks. Standard, you are lucky if you see 5 different decks in a top 16.
Quote from Razerblaze
I'd bet that most MTG players reason for not liking the eternal formats aren't limited to the fact that just the lands alone cost upwards of $1000 to be even remotely competitive, but because the format revoles around 1) broken turn 1/2 win combos or 2) broken control that results in 45+ minute games, and zero chance that a rogue deck can compete.
And you just said the 3 things you needed to to show that you have never in your life played legacy or vintage. -
2
Surging Chaos posted a message on Giving moneyThe state is not a psychic entity. It is completely incapable of knowing exactly what resources people require because it doesn't use the price mechanism that the free market uses in determining how resources are distributed. Ludwig von Mises called this the economic calculation problem. The economic calculation problem can be expanded upon any state program, which includes welfare.Posted in: Debate
Since the state receives its money from extortion, it has no incentive to make sure that money is actually put to good use. This is exactly why government programs are filled with waste and fraud. If we are to give money and aid to the poor, it is much better to voluntarily give it to them. People are inherently generous. The problem currently is that the state has been cracking down on people wanting to voluntarily help the homeless and poor. -
2
Scarmask posted a message on [[Official]] Current Modern Banned List Discussion (Next Announcement: 1/27/14)I think it's kind of funny how every single time a discussion arises about potentially unbanning any one card, if the card is red, black, or green someone will always say "can't unban, jund would run it", and if it's white or blue, someone will always say "jund will just splash w/u to play it and be even more broken".Posted in: Modern - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1
1
2
You might as well just play U/R Delver at that point. If you are going blue you might as well get Delver and Force of Will to have better matchups against what mono red burn is weak to.
1
1
The biggest hurdle I think is how marriage in general affects legal benefits received. Getting government out of marriage and leaving it to those who want to enter it and call it whatever they want would be a good start.
1
1
Rand Paul is not a libertarian. I really wish he was more like his father.
On social darwinism:
If you are referring to libertarians opposing welfare programs, it's because these programs take from some to give to others: their existence strikes against the cooperative aim of a free society. The poor fare fair better in the free market than they do from government largesse. The market is not a struggle but a cooperative endeavor of supreme importance.
I will also quote some Mises:
"The fundamental social phenomenon is the division of labor and its counterpart human cooperation. Experience teaches man that cooperative action is more efficient and productive than isolated actions of self-sufficient individuals. The natural conditions determining man's life and effort are such that the division of labor increases output per unit of labor expended. (Human Action, p. 157) ...
Collaboration of the more talented, more able and more industrious with the less talented, less able, and less industrious results in benefits for both. The gains derived from the division of labor are always mutual. (Human Action, pp. 158–59)"
For further reading:
Man vs The Welfare State by Henry Hazlitt - It's free!
1
In the end if you are proponent of a higher minimum wage then you are a proponent for higher unemployment.
1
1
Republicans are pretty much as bad as democrats. Both parties are a bunch of war mongers and both want to steal your money to pay not only warfare but welfare as well. They just disagree on the details. Republicans (along with democrats) regularly trample the constitution.