Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Erm, Neo... sticking people in internment camps, without due process, based on their race... that's pretty embarrassing in and of itself.

Yes, but if that was ALL it was... a cottage in the middle of nowhere to hold them until the end of WW2 due to the rampant paranoia... then they were free to go.

I don't think as many people would have cared.

Especially if you know what happened with... some other people around the same time... (Aryan Women, for example...)

[SalmonGod]

[Iceblaster]

...Not gonna lie, that card seems really useful if you're playing a deck that swarms the other person.

does it affect the other person though? i mean. if it turns all lands on the playing field to swamp, that'll rek a person pretty hard.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Let me put it this way: I don't play Magic, and I know of that card by name.

[Rolepgeek]

...Not gonna lie, that card seems really useful if you're playing a deck that swarms the other person.

does it affect the other person though? i mean. if it turns all lands on the playing field to swamp, that'll rek a person pretty hard.

in addition to their other types.

[Iceblaster]

...Oh. Then that card's completely the opposite of what I thought.

whoops. i am bad magic player who last played in like. 2008.

[SalmonGod]

I last played Magic in like 2001.

[Rolan7]

Sounds like a way to use swampwalk. No idea if that's still a common ability. (Creature can't be blocked if target controls swamps. Uh, except maybe by swampwalk creatures?)
Wouldn't change the color of mana produced, though.

Yeah... besides dabbling in the Win95 Shandalar game, I've barely played since 2004ish

[Rolepgeek]

Actually, guys, I think I figured it out.

[Culise]

...well, now, while we're talking the politics of Magic, I think I just found a card for OWS.
^{We're going to build a wall and make Phyrexia pay for it.  Make Dominara great again.}

[martinuzz]

Dat Trump. Appointing his son in law. I guess the only thing holding back impeachment now is the fact that Trump's not inaugurated yet.
Perhaps you should per-emptively rename Inauguration Day into Impeachment Day

[Phmcw]

... the only thing I can conclude from this thread is that Trump + OWS make an excellent combo....

[Rockphed]

Honestly, there just needs to be a way to get a free, legal, valid ID with nothing else attached. Solves the entire voter ID problem.

Hell, we can make it a new thing too so that we bypass all the initial duplication possibilities.

And every state that implements voter ID requirements also implements programs to get free, legal, valid ID to anyone who claims economic hardship.

Poor equivalencies.

In the process of being licensed to drive you get an ID, which is proof that you jumped through the necessary hoops to get licensed. The ID issued is to let people know you have been deemed skilled enough to drive safely.

There are also penalties for people who sell alcohol/tobacco to underage folks, usually involving revoking their license to sell them, as well as fines and probable criminal records. The ID check is for the seller, not the buyer.

You don't need to learn a skill to vote (beyond filling in the ballot correctly) and the person who checks off people at a polling station won't be punished for someone else's fraud.

I assume this was pointed at me.  I was showing that in order to do all sorts of things in every day life people need to have ID.  My point was that complaining that people have to take time to get an ID to vote is ignoring that people have to take time to get ID to do all sorts of other things.

[Iceblaster]

Dat Trump. Appointing his son in law. I guess the only thing holding back impeachment now is the fact that Trump's not inaugurated yet.
Perhaps you should per-emptively rename Inauguration Day into Impeachment Day

Is that an impeachable thing? I don't really understand the valid reasons for impeachment besides 'clearly a criminal/doing criminal activity and it can be proven.' I may just be a bit horrible at research though.

[Culise]

Dat Trump. Appointing his son in law. I guess the only thing holding back impeachment now is the fact that Trump's not inaugurated yet.
Perhaps you should per-emptively rename Inauguration Day into Impeachment Day

Is that an impeachable thing? I don't really understand the valid reasons for impeachment besides 'clearly a criminal/doing criminal activity and it can be proven.' I may just be a bit horrible at research though.

According to the Constitution, you're correct.  According to popular vote, it's basically a "we don't like you" vote.  I mean, I'm no more fond of Trump than many, but blatant nepotism is not quite a criminal offense.

EDIT:

5 U.S. Code § 3110 - Employment of relatives; restrictions
(a) For the purpose of this section—
   (1) “agency” means—
      (A) an Executive agency;
      (B) an office, agency, or other establishment in the legislative branch;
      (C) an office, agency, or other establishment in the judicial branch; and
      (D) the government of the District of Columbia;

   (2) “public official” means an officer (including the President and a Member of Congress), a member of the uniformed service, an employee and any other individual, in whom is vested the authority by law, rule, or regulation, or to whom the authority has been delegated, to appoint, employ, promote, or advance individuals, or to recommend individuals for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement in connection with employment in an agency; and

   (3) “relative” means, with respect to a public official, an individual who is related to the public official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister.

(b) A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual.

(c) An individual appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in violation of this section is not entitled to pay, and money may not be paid from the Treasury as pay to an individual so appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced.

(d) The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe regulations authorizing the temporary employment, in the event of emergencies resulting from natural disasters or similar unforeseen events or circumstances, of individuals whose employment would otherwise be prohibited by this section.

(e) This section shall not be construed to prohibit the appointment of an individual who is a preference eligible in any case in which the passing over of that individual on a certificate of eligibles furnished under section 3317(a) of this title will result in the selection for appointment of an individual who is not a preference eligible.
(Added Pub. L. 90–206, title II, § 221(a), Dec. 16, 1967, 81 Stat. 640; amended Pub. L. 95–454, title IX, § 906(a)(2), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1224.)

Huh.  So, which position did he appoint his son-in-law to, and how qualified is said son-in-law?