Quote from Theomnifish »Then how do cards like Panoptic Mirror and Eye of the Storm work? They both let you play sorceries at times you otherwise wouldn't be allowed to, IIRC. (edit: Also Mind's Desire.)
Quote from Grote Braak »Hmm, Weird should be a supertype, not a subtype. Weird Creature - Human Squirrel for instance.
Quote from Rath »Weirds?? That makes no sense.. it's an adjective...
Quote from The Dictionary »Weird:Archaic. Of or relating to fate or the Fates.
Quote from rancored_elf »It's nice art, but I'm not sure how it would look on a card. All the city detail would be lost when it got cropped, left with just a rectangular picture of the balcony and the cleric standing on it.
Quote from bardo_trout »Note: you should edit the post above me Alatar and put the first paragraph in [ quote]s. It's confusing if you don't know that you're replying to someone (me, in this case).
Quote from bardo_trout »Heroin is a biologically addictive agent regardless of purity, etc. Just so you know.
Quote from bardo_trout »True, all legislation that impacts individual rights must be made in light of the unintended consequences. How do you reconcile the harmful externalities of drug use in society with the benefits legalization would include?
Quote from Plastik »I'm arguing with you still out of kindness. You misquoted me. You lost. I said they are either selfish or mentally disordered. not both.
Quote from Plastik »Rigth now, I'm fairly certain that the only people who die en masse from drug cartels are people who are buying drugs, IE: people engaged in an illegal activity. That's their choice. Once we make it legal, it's lawsuit city, just like for people who die of lung cancer from cigs. If you do somethign illegal and you die, you had fair warning. If you do something legal and you die, you sue.
Quote from Plastik »and my justification for calling you retarded or selfish is because you are sacrificing something that isn't yours (the lives of innocent people) for something that will in some way benefit you (los drogas). If you cannot make this connection, you're not selfish, but that does make you retarded. GG.
Quote from Plastik »Aww, you said GG. How cute. I thought you could only say that when you had obviously won and any responses to you are just trolling. Guess I was wrong. Also, GG.
Quote from LJustus »Valid yes. Sound no.
Quote from extremestan »Using harmful drugs, as in those that, in general, devalue or destroy the welfare of self, family, and society, is not a right. So the comparison is sound.
Quote from Plastik »The risks far outweigh any benefits I have seen in this thread. Especially because regardless of cost, selling marijuana is still selling, and it will encourage theft by those who don't have enough money to get it. It's inherently selfish to want marijuana legalises, and unless you have a mental disorder which disallows you from conceptualising the global view of an issue, you're being a selfish bastard by arguing that drugs should be legal. You're talking about killing people here.
Quote from Plastik »The best solution is eliminating drugs. Raze and burn the fields, eliminate the seed, until one day there's none left. Sure, it lacks realistic doability, but it's the best solution. And you're arguing that legalization would help many, not all. I'm arguing that you're a selfish bastard because that "many" includes you, and te legalisation of drugs would have a toll in human lives, therefore, since you're wiling to sacrifice something priceless that doesn't belong to you, you're a heartless, selfish bastard. GG.
Quote from Jedit »That's a nice, bloodless way of describing business speculation using a million lives as playing chips.
No matter how beneficial things are in the long term, in the short term - and by short term here we're talking at least five to ten years - the working classes get the purple shaft. After that, the outcome is still not certain to be good for the economy.
Quote from bardo_trout »@ Alatar. That's a great post (#32 above).
Quote from bardo_trout »You can only shrug off the trade deficit to 'comparative advantage' because reckless consumer spending (which may create other negative externalities, environmental ones, mainly), of shoddy Asian goods allows you to accept the erosion of the manufacturing base that made this country such an economic juggernaut 60 years ago.
Yet the middle class, created out of the manufacturing orgy of the 1940-60s, is shrinking and no sane economist will disagree with this. And all of the cool high-tech "New Economy" jobs that were to sustain the middle class in a post-manufacturing economy are a bust as well. With the revolutions in global telecommunications, those jobs are being shipped to India and South America where US business can pay those workers $0.15 on the dollar. And without a middle class, who's going to buy homes, savings bonds, corporate stock, or invest in pension funds? And if those things aren't purchased what will happen to the bond market? Economic apocalypse, that's what.
The US economy is basically on a binge-and-purge cycle right now. Binging on cheap imports as we purge decent jobs that help people raise families and make durable good purchases (homes, cars, etc.) And we can see this inverse relationship by looking at the trade deficit.
Quote from Jedit »CAFTA is an extension of NAFTA. NAFTA did not achieve anything other than to increase the profits of a few big corporations at the cost of sending thousands of American small farmers into receivership.
Quote from Congressional Budget Office »Over recent decades, U.S. manufacturers have continually invested in more and better capital goods and manufacturing techniques in order to remain competitive in world markets. That investment has enabled them to raise their output and keep pace with overall economic growth without a corresponding increase in the number of workers that they employ. Since 1979, the productivity of manufacturing workers has grown at an average annual rate of 3.3 percent, significantly faster than the 2.0 percent growth of labor productivity in the nonfarm business sector overall.
Quote from Congressional Budget Office »Applying the ratio to the estimates from CBO's model leads to the conclusion that NAFTA has increased U.S. GDP, but by a very small amount--probably no more than a few billion dollars, or a few hundredths of a percent (see Table 2). The trade increases wrought by NAFTA raised Mexican GDP by much larger percentages than they raised U.S. GDP--quite likely 16 to 21 times the U.S. percentages--because of the much smaller size of the Mexican economy.
Quote from bardo_trout »You're right, trade deficits aren't bad, per se, but when it begins to impact domestic employment and income creation, then the trade deficit discourages foreign investors from buying US Treasury bonds. And the continued sale of stable treasury bonds are one of the ways we pay off our staggering debts, which is several trillion dollars at this point ($7.8 T to be more exact).
Quote from Foreign Affairs »The United States continues to reap major gains from what Charles de Gaulle called its "exorbitant privilege," its unique role in providing global liquidity by running chronic external imbalances. The resulting inflow of productivity-enhancing capital has strengthened its underlying economic position. Only one development could upset this optimistic prognosis: an end to the technological dynamism, openness to trade, and flexibility that have powered the U.S. economy. The biggest threat to U.S. hegemony, accordingly, stems not from the sentiments of foreign investors, but from protectionism and isolationism at home.
Quote from bardo_trout »On the contrary, the pressure exists to keep working conditions poor and wages cheap, otherwise foreign investment will just go elsewhere to find the prices they're looking for.
Quote from AlatarIstarion »For the first time in the history of mankind, mass poverty is explicitly avoidable and has been or is being eliminated in a sizable portion of the world.
Quote from Darth Cow »Explain to me how using say, Meth, is a victimless act. Meth users become essentially useless to society and everyone around them, including, not infrequently, children. Not to mention increased sexual activity and spread of STDs like AIDS.
Just as consuming alcohol is only victimless if you aren't driving, most drugs are only victimless under limited circumstances. Maybe we can lock everyone up in a safe house and let them get high all they want. But there are still the costs borne by society of caring for people who have intentionally screwed up their health in a severe way.
Let's give everyone a contract when they buy a pack of cigarrettes: I forfit all rights to emergency or other state guarenteed medical care related to lung/throat cancer and all other tobacco related diseases.
The science and risks of illegal drugs are very clear, although I agree that double standards for marijuana are unfair.
Quote from Darth Cow »As for legalizing drugs helping poor farmers in third world nations, consider the power of America agriculture. If they could grow pot legally, they certainly would and would beat out third world producers. Illegal drugs would become cheap, no longer such a cash cow, but that would also mean reduced income for those poor farmers elsewhere. A bolivian farmer gets a lot less money for growing corn than coca. The flip side is that it would also hurt the drug cartels and regimes that rely on the income. But I don't think this is a good reason to legalize drugs.
Quote from Denver »Well, I think we've managed to hit the ball back and forth plenty, AI, and unless you want to continue to say the same things forever, I'll just call it quits. I'm certain neither of us will convince the other, and I'd much rather not offend anyone (which I'm prone to doing), so I'll just stop.
Quote from Denver » You mean... Detroit, right? Right?! :redface:
Quote from Denver »Ah, but to say that one city should change itself to help it's locally based yet nationally reaching industry is a bit far-fetched, no? Granted, local government often times do act on the behalf of commerce or industry, I tend to think that there would have been little Michigan could have done to stop Asian and European cars. It would have had to have been a national thing. Unless, of course, GM and Ford went overseas to manufacture so that there products could be comparably priced and of comparable (poor) quality, but then we're back to where we were before. (I am aware that yes, Chevy and Ford do have overseas plants.)
Quote from Denver » People working in Chinese industry: Many. Albeit low-skilled, low-payed peasants.
People working in American industry: Few. Albeit mostly-skilled, mostly well-payed middle class.
Quote from Denver »despite their apparent irrelevance, I see few ways to modernize factories and plants without an input of money from somewhere.