Topic: What I said to Hillary (pertinent to videogames)

[Svevan]

Hillary came to town and I went.

She arrived late, spoke, then said that if we had questions we could ask her as she was signing ****.

After waiting for 10 minutes as she signed the ****, she hobbled down the line towards me. I said to her, "Do you still support videogame legislation?" She said "For M-Rated titles, yes. No one under 18 should be playing an M-Rated Title."

I replied: "I agree, but didn't you try to pass legislation that would fine on-site managers $5000 if they sold a game to a minor?"

"I know it's not a great system, but it's the retailers who are selling the games to minors. The evidence shows that violent games are very damaging to children."

"I believe the ESRB should be responsible for self-enforcing within the industry," I replied.

"But who sets those standards and keeps them in check? How can we trust the industry?" she responded.

"There are no rules like this in place for movies or music being sold to minors."

"I know, and that's why we may have to come up with something better in the future. Years of studies have shown that violent videogames have a drastic effect on children, and we need to protect them."

With that I thanked her for her time. I cannot, of course, remember exactly word for word what she or I said, but this is a good approximation that makes both of us sound more eloquent. She was VERY nice to me and seemed (unbelievably) frustrated with the concept of fining store managers for selling games to minors. She had many opportunities to walk past me during this one to two minute conversation (constant interruptions from people shoving posters in her face made this very short exchange much longer than it appears), but she seemed to want to address the issue with me (a potential voter) and stayed until I was satisfied. I was getting tongue-tied and blanking out, otherwise I would have kept her there for a few more minutes.

pics or it didn't happen:

[Shift Key]

Wow, orange. How's your retinas?

[GoldenPhoenix]

I would care if she had a chance at the nomination but at the moment her opinion matters as much as Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee on the matter.

[Nick DiMola]

I would care if she had a chance at the nomination but at the moment her opinion matters as much as Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee on the matter.

I live in New York, sadly her opinion does matter

[GoldenPhoenix]

I would care if she had a chance at the nomination but at the moment her opinion matters as much as Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee on the matter.

I live in New York, sadly her opinion does matter

Ah well, there is that!

[DAaaMan64]

I would care if she had a chance at the nomination but at the moment her opinion matters as much as Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee on the matter.

Which is as at least as much as mine!

No federal enforcement of the ESRB please.

[Sundoulos]

I would care if she had a chance at the nomination but at the moment her opinion matters as much as Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee on the matter.

Which is as at least as much as mine!

No federal enforcement of the ESRB please.

Seconded.

Her response is about what I would expect from her.  After all, she's the person who once said, "When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything."  For context, this statement was in response to a question about social security benefits, but I still find the general sentiment to be very scary.

[vudu]

Hillary came to town and I went.

Did you show her your Obama tattoo?

[Svevan]

Let me add a bit of info: in the context of the location, situation, and audience, Hillary's response to me was gracious and informative. She was signing scraps and posters as hundreds of her fans were crushing towards the fence protecting her. Instead of disregarding my question (would've been EASY to do) or just giving a pat and pre-determined answer, she responded to the exact questions I asked. When I said something stupid, she called me out, and when I said something smart and informed, she said that I was right. The exchange above seems hostile when in reality it was one of the coolest things I've ever seen a politician do.

That said, her response is not adequate from a political standpoint. She made an effort to see both sides, and has fallen on the wrong side of the fence. Yet, I was on a very weird Hillary high for hours after I met her, because she seriously stopped in her tracks to talk with me. I wouldn't be surprised if an hour after I left she was still talking to people in the arena.

edit: also, Hillary's opinion matters way more than Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee's right now, in terms of power. Ron Paul is in the House of Representatives, whose actions are not as publicized and whose members are not as celebrated. Mike Huckabee is unemployed. Hillary is a United States Senator, and though she was elected from and represents New York, her decisions impact the whole nation; Senators are Nationally-minded politicians elected locally. Her videogame laws would not just impact New York. Also, she may (in the future) be our Vice-President or serve in a cabinet position or maybe, by some weird miracle, running in the general election for President this November. All I can say is, after this historic election, do not expect Hillary to go the way of the dodo.

[vudu]

Instead of disregarding my question (would've been EASY to do) or just giving a pat and pre-determined answer, she responded to the exact questions I asked.

I guess there's a first time for everything.  * zing *

[ShyGuy]

I've been watching the First Season of Prison Break. Watch out for her secret service agents.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Didn't realize I had a say over who New York elects (Besides I was being sarcastic). There is too much to be concerned about with my own Senators to worry about. ANYWAY, I guess today she put on a different personality which the hideous orange suit represented. Or perhaps it was blind any potential snipers in the vicinity.

[Nick DiMola]

I've been watching the First Season of Prison Break. Watch out for her secret service agents.

Stop after you finish that season, the rest of the show will infuriate you with its craptastic plot.

[Plugabugz]

Until you explain the abomination of Boris Johnson, i shall weep for every passing day. Camels will eventually join in with the tears.

HE BANNED ALCOHOL ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT. IN HIS FIRST WEEK. WTF.

[ShyGuy]

Transportation or Open Container? If Open Container, good on him. Dirty winos...

[Plugabugz]

It's open containers apparently.

They should start with taking away the free travel from the under 16's who get on the bus, travel one stop for 400 metres and get off again.

BACK TO HILARY FOLKS.

[Ian Sane]

After all, she's the person who once said, "When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything."

That is a scary statement.  If I was a politician I think I would avoid using huge blanket words like "everything", "anything", "nothing", "never" or "always".  The statement could be interpreted to mean that private ownership of anything is bad.  Hell even if someone thought that I imagine if they were running for public office they wouldn't want the American public to know that's how they felt.

I think she answered those game related questions quite well.  And remember this isn't like she's on a podium or on TV.  She's just talking to one person who should blow off and no one would ever know.  I'll give full credit for at least appearing (with politicians you never know) to care about questions from one random guy.

I've gone to a few political rallies with my parents and I don't think I'll go to one again.  In all those cases it was a politician that I was seriously considering voting for and eventually did.  But I found the constant cheering from supporters and phony smiles of the whole thing irritating.  Politicians are such that even when they're saying something that I really strongly agree with I find it irritating.  There's a salesman kind of feel to it all.  They want my vote and it often feels like that's all their interested in.  Once in a while I do see a politician that comes across like they really want to do what's right for the country (or region) though usually they subscribe to an idealogy that really doesn't co-exist with mine.  Still I'll give them credit for really believing in something even if I think only a misguided idiot would have that idea.  I guess the idiot is better than the crook or the phony.

But man is that orange outfit gross.

[animecyberrat]

Isn't discussing politicians the same as discussing politics? Just wondering cuz I would like to express my thoughts on the matter but don't want to step into that bannable territory again.

It's cool that your taking an active interest in the running of our government though which is more than most people around here can say. Me personally I have done my fair share of grassroots campaigning in the last 2 elections and this time around I am not even going to bother, the candidate I would support has already dropped out.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Isn't discussing politicians the same as discussing politics? Just wondering cuz I would like to express my thoughts on the matter but don't want to step into that bannable territory again.

It's cool that your taking an active interest in the running of our government though which is more than most people around here can say. Me personally I have done my fair share of grassroots campaigning in the last 2 elections and this time around I am not even going to bother, the candidate I would support has already dropped out.

I don't think that is fair to say about people here, there are those of us (Like me) that don't feel this is the appropriate place which is why I use my blog.

Anyway to Ian, I agree with you which is why I wouldn't go to a rally, it is basically preaching the choir and lots of curtailing what you say to your audience. It is kind of funny a year ago I went to the Ronald Reagan club and there was this one obnoxious politician that kissed everyone's butt but wouldn't shut up and was obnoxious. What made it really funny was that he was bragging he got the "silver" in one election.

[Ian Sane]

What made it really funny was that he was bragging he got the "silver" in one election.

 

I got "silver" once in trying to win over a girl I was interested in.  You don't see me bragging about that.

[vudu]

I have a question about the original post.

She was VERY nice to me and seemed (unbelievably) frustrated with the concept of fining store managers for selling games to minors.

When you say unbelievably, do you mean oh my, I was really surprised she wasn't batshit crazy or do you mean I think she was being insincere?

[UncleBob]

You should have asked her why she's working so hard to forcibly take money from some people so she can redistribute it to whomever she feels is more deserving.  That would have been a more interesting answer.

[KDR_11k]

I don't think any sane person should vote for Hillarious anyway.

[Svevan]

I have a question about the original post.

She was VERY nice to me and seemed (unbelievably) frustrated with the concept of fining store managers for selling games to minors.

When you say unbelievably, do you mean oh my, I was really surprised she wasn't batshit crazy or do you mean I think she was being insincere?

Uh, the former I guess. I thought it was weird how much her own idea pained her, and she seemed very sincere about it. She wasn't taking her cues from me as far as I could tell.

[animecyberrat]

Isn't discussing politicians the same as discussing politics? Just wondering cuz I would like to express my thoughts on the matter but don't want to step into that bannable territory again.

It's cool that your taking an active interest in the running of our government though which is more than most people around here can say. Me personally I have done my fair share of grassroots campaigning in the last 2 elections and this time around I am not even going to bother, the candidate I would support has already dropped out.

I don't think that is fair to say about people here, there are those of us (Like me) that don't feel this is the appropriate place which is why I use my blog.

Anyway to Ian, I agree with you which is why I wouldn't go to a rally, it is basically preaching the choir and lots of curtailing what you say to your audience. It is kind of funny a year ago I went to the Ronald Reagan club and there was this one obnoxious politician that kissed everyone's butt but wouldn't shut up and was obnoxious. What made it really funny was that he was bragging he got the "silver" in one election.

What are you saying isn't fair, that I don't want to get into a political discussion because it is against the rules or that I think it is cool Even is getting involved?

[GoldenPhoenix]

Isn't discussing politicians the same as discussing politics? Just wondering cuz I would like to express my thoughts on the matter but don't want to step into that bannable territory again.

It's cool that your taking an active interest in the running of our government though which is more than most people around here can say. Me personally I have done my fair share of grassroots campaigning in the last 2 elections and this time around I am not even going to bother, the candidate I would support has already dropped out.

I don't think that is fair to say about people here, there are those of us (Like me) that don't feel this is the appropriate place which is why I use my blog.

Anyway to Ian, I agree with you which is why I wouldn't go to a rally, it is basically preaching the choir and lots of curtailing what you say to your audience. It is kind of funny a year ago I went to the Ronald Reagan club and there was this one obnoxious politician that kissed everyone's butt but wouldn't shut up and was obnoxious. What made it really funny was that he was bragging he got the "silver" in one election.

What are you saying isn't fair, that I don't want to get into a political discussion because it is against the rules or that I think it is cool Even is getting involved?

I was referencing this:

"which is more than most people around here can say. "

[animecyberrat]

I meant thinking it is cool of Even, not getting involved. My bad. I was refering to the Blame Even thread. Even though that was a joke.

[RABicle]

You should have asked her why she's working so hard to forcibly take money from some people so she can redistribute it to whomever she feels is more deserving.  That would have been a more interesting answer.

I didn't realise taxation was such an outrageous concept.

[Nick DiMola]

Why do I see this thread getting funhous'd?

[GoldenPhoenix]

Taxation is the ultimate good, all should pay 100% in taxes to the government.

[Nick DiMola]

We need to bring back Taxation without Representation. This will most likely spark a civil war, which will eventually set the groundwork for a new Mel Gibson film, The Patriot 2: New Blood.

[NWR_insanolord]

Why do I see this thread getting funhous'd?

That's being generous, once I saw RABicle's post I assumed the topic would be completely locked within 24 hours, or 12 if we're lucky

[GoldenPhoenix]

We need to bring back Taxation without Representation. This will most likely spark a civil war, which will eventually set the groundwork for a new Mel Gibson film, The Patriot 2: New Blood.

A civil war of nerds typing at each other with vicious shots being fired against cyberspace causing it to collapse, leaving only Magic the Gathering as the only option to settle the conflict.

[Shift Key]

I didn't realise taxation was such an outrageous concept.

I hear in New Hampshire the state motto is "Live Free or Die". What an innovative concept.

[RABicle]

In WA, our motto is "We hate Victoria."

[UncleBob]

You should have asked her why she's working so hard to forcibly take money from some people so she can redistribute it to whomever she feels is more deserving.  That would have been a more interesting answer.

I didn't realise taxation was such an outrageous concept.

Huge difference between taxation for the purpose of running the government and taxation for the purpose of redistributing wealth.

[Maverick]

Can I bring out the "BAIL OUT" .gif again?   

[RABicle]

You should have asked her why she's working so hard to forcibly take money from some people so she can redistribute it to whomever she feels is more deserving.  That would have been a more interesting answer.

I didn't realise taxation was such an outrageous concept.

Huge difference between taxation for the purpose of running the government and taxation for the purpose of redistributing wealth.

You mean like, welfare?

[Svevan]

I go to all this effort to make a completely a-political thread (sarcasm), and you guys have to go and drag POLITICS into it (also sarcasm). How dare you!

But seriously: watch it.

[DAaaMan64]

I go to all this effort to make a completely a-political thread (sarcasm), and you guys have to go and drag POLITICS into it (also sarcasm). How dare you!

But seriously: watch it.

NWR can't handle pokes.  Told you this already.

[UncleBob]

Considering the thread started out so heavily political in the first post, I didn't seen an issue with the way the conversation was going.

But to answer RAB's question, yes Government Welfare is one way in which the US Government takes money by force to redistribute it to others.

[Crimm]

Let me state this out front: it is possible to create a thread about political figures and not be political.  It's not easy, but it can happen.

Let me also state that the nature of the question it IS relevant to the site's mission as a whole.  Also, the bulk of the experience the OP related was just that, an experience.  It wasn't so much political harranging.

Given that it was a recollection AND that it is important to the site as a whole the topic is perfectly legitimate.  However, extension to other politicized issues is not, and will be regarded as violating the "no political discussion" rule.

I hope everyone is clear on this.  Thank you.

[UncleBob]

So.. political discussion about video games is okay, but otherwise, it's not?

[Svevan]

uh, discussion of videogame legislation is one thing; discussion of the politics BEHIND the legislation is another. We don't need a debate about big-government small-government, federal control vs. corporate control, or morality censorship.

[Shift Key]

or morality censorship.

What was the point of the thread then? To see how close Evan got to Clinton? To know that the "Political Undead" is just a label (phew, I suspected Umbrella were back for a minute there)?

Admit it, the thread crossed that fictional line between "acceptable use of politics" and "unacceptable use of politics".

You may claim that we are talking about video game legislation which can be independent of any political discussion but I believe that the politics behind recent legislation attempts in the USA are relevant to any discussion of the problem.

I could go on a big old tangent here about how game ratings in Australia is done by the government, and it is being used to censor games, but since we're not allowed to talk about politics it doesn't matter. I could go on about how the GTA4 release here a fortnight ago triggered a spate of "violent games trigger violent behaviour in the real world" and "think of the children" news stories. But no, we're not allowed to talk about this.

We couldn't even talk about the fact a recent investigation into the sale of M-rated games to underage buyers showed the trend is declining.

Be clear about this or lock the thread.

I BLAME EVAN

[GoldenPhoenix]

Of course Evan didn't realize this would turn political ::rolls eyes::. It has happened every time Evan has created one his Obama or political related threads that "aren't meant to be political". It is to the point that i cannot accept the fact that it is out of ignorance of how people will react here, but that it is meant to push the boundaries over and over again.

[DAaaMan64]

Of course Evan didn't realize this would turn political ::rolls eyes::. It has happened every time Evan has created one his Obama or political related threads that "aren't meant to be political". It is to the point that i cannot accept the fact that it is out of ignorance of how people will react here, but that it is meant to push the boundaries over and over again.

You mean a POKE?  I've said this several times.

 

uh, discussion of videogame legislation is one thing; discussion of the politics BEHIND the legislation is another. We don't need a debate about big-government small-government, federal control vs. corporate control, or morality censorship.

Both of these are easily relevant.

Small domestic government advocates little social control over things like video games.  Example:

I will vote for --- ---- because he advocates no federal level laws against what video games I want to play and leaves it to the state to decide.

Now say some one challenges the argument above, I refer back to my philosophies as a rebuttal. In my counter-argument

Thats because a central domesticity interventionist government does not know how to run my life, fundamental flaw as pointed out by the founders.

What have I don't above?  Started a political argument by discussion of my political philosophies.  It wasn't intentional, but it couldn't be avoided for me to hold my validity in the argument.

Not to mention people love to spout their opinions.

[Shift Key]

I will vote for --- ---- because he advocates no federal level laws against what video games I want to play and leaves it to the state to decide.

**** it, I'll bite.

How do you know the state will do a good job of setting these magical laws regarding video games, considering all known efforts to legislate at a state level (that I've read) have been thrown out of court for being unconstitutional.

[ShyGuy]

My non-political thread about a politcal figure will be titled: "I like women, but Ronald Regan was a handsome man"

[DAaaMan64]

I will vote for --- ---- because he advocates no federal level laws against what video games I want to play and leaves it to the state to decide.

**** it, I'll bite.

How do you know the state will do a good job of setting these magical laws regarding video games, considering all known efforts to legislate at a state level (that I've read) have been thrown out of court for being unconstitutional.

Alright Shift Key, I want to tell you, I'm rarely sarcastic.  So if I ask a question, I'm authentically asking one.  Under what circumstances would they be unconstitutional exactly?  Free speech?  I doubt it wouldn't work in ALL states. Second, If they are unconstitutional, how are they any more constitutional at the federal level?  In fact they are LESS constitutional at the federal level. 

In all honesty, if it falls under free speech then we let it slide, and use social and community concern to solve the problem.  Mostly through education.  Education on separate subjects on social concern IS constitutional WITHOUT the DOE(unless the school can go without DOE funding). This is because protection of liberties is the highest priority.   Just because it got hard to protect free speech doesn't mean we should regulate it.  The founders new this. 

If all we can do is believe in free speech but cannot actually accomplish it, then we've done nothing. 

Is this close enough to relevance of ESRB regulation, mods?  I'm remaining mature, in hopes of protecting myself.

And LOL at ShyGuy.  I just want to say this, Reagan is the sexiest female first name ever. Not because of the president.

Going to bed.

[GoldenPhoenix]

I think because threads like these are not closed because of the "rules" that we need the federal government to close it.

[DAaaMan64]

SUPA LAWLZ

[Crimm]

We don't need a debate about big-government small-government, federal control vs. corporate control, or morality censorship.

Actually I disagree.  I don't feel that we can restrict such conversations when they are so directly intertwined with the site as a whole.  Let's ask the Community Manager.



heh

[Crimm]

I think because threads like these are not closed because of the "rules" that we need the federal government to close it.

We'll have to open an investigative panel.  We'll need to bring officials before it: Steven "WindyMan" Rodriguez and Ty "S-U-P-E-R" Shugart will need to answer the senators' questions.

[Shift Key]

Alright Shift Key, I want to tell you, I'm rarely sarcastic.  So if I ask a question, I'm authentically asking one.  Under what circumstances would they be unconstitutional exactly?  Free speech?  I doubt it wouldn't work in ALL states. Second, If they are unconstitutional, how are they any more constitutional at the federal level?  In fact they are LESS constitutional at the federal level.

Freedom of speech is the most common one I have seen, but here's a few recent cases summarized:

Minnesota - legislated in mid-2006, the law would fine underage people who purchased the game $25. Immediately taken to court by the ESA. Thrown out a couple of months later under first amendment laws and lack of evidence that violent games harm children. The verdict has been appealed but upheld(as recently as March of this year).
Reference: http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/331688.html#cutid1

California - legislated in late-2005, the law concerned "certain violent video games" be labeled and prohibit access to these games by minors. it was appealed immediately and an injunction blocked the law from being enacted while the case was before the court. It was defeated in court due to vague interpretations and freedom of speech. It is ongoing in the courts.
Reference: http://gamepolitics.com/2007/08/06/breaking-california-2005-video-game-law-ruled-unconstitutional/

Arizona - legislated earlier this year, this law assigned liability to content producers and distributors for damages if it has been deemed to be "dangerous" and motivated someone to commit a crime. It was blocked by a Senate committee on the grounds that it was too broad and may have unintended consequences.
Reference: http://gamepolitics.com/2008/04/08/arizona-state-senate-rejects-dangerous-media-content-bill/

In all honesty, if it falls under free speech then we let it slide, and use social and community concern to solve the problem.  Mostly through education.  Education on separate subjects on social concern IS constitutional WITHOUT the DOE(unless the school can go without DOE funding). This is because protection of liberties is the highest priority.   Just because it got hard to protect free speech doesn't mean we should regulate it. 

I should have stated my viewpoint more clearly regarding state and federal lawmaking before attacking your viewpoint.

I don't believe any level government should hold the power to censor information or content. I believe the best solution to the video game legislation problem is better education and a greater understanding of how video games affect the player (both good and bad), rather than simply legislating on a "gut feeling".

Much research has been done without getting a clear picture of this (I laughed at an article last week which claimed that "Boys who don't play videogames at all are at greater risk of getting into trouble than those who play violent games occasionally" ) but I think with time - and making better use of past research- the picture should get clearer.

Beer time.

[Crimm]

OH GOD HE'S WATCHING THIS THREAD!  THE SUMMON WORKED!

[Shift Key]

OH GOD HE'S WATCHING THIS THREAD!  THE SUMMON WORKED!

I requested his presence at this disaster of a thread. Don't anger the deity.

[RABicle]

But to answer RAB's question, yes Government Welfare is one way in which the US Government takes money by force to redistribute it to others.

And supporting the less fortunate is bad?

[Shift Key]

And supporting the less fortunate is bad?

"The less fortunate get all the breaks" -- Philip J Fry

[Deguello]

But to answer RAB's question, yes Government Welfare is one way in which the US Government takes money by force to redistribute it to others.

Dangerous Waters there, UncleBob.  Not paying taxes is in violation of the Social Contract as ratified in the Constitution.  They are merely enforcing said contract when the IRS man comes a-knocking.

[DAaaMan64]

Alright Shift Key, I want to tell you, I'm rarely sarcastic.  So if I ask a question, I'm authentically asking one.  Under what circumstances would they be unconstitutional exactly?  Free speech?  I doubt it wouldn't work in ALL states. Second, If they are unconstitutional, how are they any more constitutional at the federal level?  In fact they are LESS constitutional at the federal level.

Freedom of speech is the most common one I have seen, but here's a few recent cases summarized:

Minnesota - legislated in mid-2006, the law would fine underage people who purchased the game $25. Immediately taken to court by the ESA. Thrown out a couple of months later under first amendment laws and lack of evidence that violent games harm children. The verdict has been appealed but upheld(as recently as March of this year).
Reference: http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/331688.html#cutid1

California - legislated in late-2005, the law concerned "certain violent video games" be labeled and prohibit access to these games by minors. it was appealed immediately and an injunction blocked the law from being enacted while the case was before the court. It was defeated in court due to vague interpretations and freedom of speech. It is ongoing in the courts.
Reference: http://gamepolitics.com/2007/08/06/breaking-california-2005-video-game-law-ruled-unconstitutional/

Arizona - legislated earlier this year, this law assigned liability to content producers and distributors for damages if it has been deemed to be "dangerous" and motivated someone to commit a crime. It was blocked by a Senate committee on the grounds that it was too broad and may have unintended consequences.
Reference: http://gamepolitics.com/2008/04/08/arizona-state-senate-rejects-dangerous-media-content-bill/

In all honesty, if it falls under free speech then we let it slide, and use social and community concern to solve the problem.  Mostly through education.  Education on separate subjects on social concern IS constitutional WITHOUT the DOE(unless the school can go without DOE funding). This is because protection of liberties is the highest priority.   Just because it got hard to protect free speech doesn't mean we should regulate it. 

I should have stated my viewpoint more clearly regarding state and federal lawmaking before attacking your viewpoint.

I don't believe any level government should hold the power to censor information or content. I believe the best solution to the video game legislation problem is better education and a greater understanding of how video games affect the player (both good and bad), rather than simply legislating on a "gut feeling".

Much research has been done without getting a clear picture of this (I laughed at an article last week which claimed that "Boys who don't play videogames at all are at greater risk of getting into trouble than those who play violent games occasionally" ) but I think with time - and making better use of past research- the picture should get clearer.

Beer time.

Thank you for the examples.

The first one is funny because they "couldn't come up with significant evidence" to prove that violent video games have a negative effect on children.  Thats fine, I'm curious exactly what type of legislation they are talking about?  You know, I mean are they trying to pass fines against managers or what? I'm not sure I would see that as unconstitutional, it is nearly the same as cigarettes and alcohol.  We fine places for selling porn to minors as well.

Shift Key, it doesn't appear we even have a disagreement here. I see you stated that the states shouldn't restrict it either.  Well I would agree but it becomes fuzzy because I don't know what works for the lives outside of my state.

[animecyberrat]

I retract what I said. I think this is a topic best left alone.

[UncleBob]

I'm going to reply to RAB's post. My reply is not one written with politics in mind, but moral values.

RAB: Helping those who are less fortunate is wonderful. I don't think you'll find too many people who would disagree. I've devoted a part of my time and money to charity.

With that said, there's a whole world of difference between giving money (property, etc.) to help someone out and using a gun to take money from one person and give it to someone else.

It is not charity when you're giving away someone else's money.

[DAaaMan64]

I would argue that helping those in need is a moral obligation for me as an individual(Provided I can stay afloat myself). But I don't have the moral or constitutional(this applies to federal welfare only) authority to take resources from others to put towards those who are less fortunate.

Not to mention private charity sucks less then government charity does.

[Plugabugz]

Where is a certain madonna dynamite to help get things onoff-track when you need him/her/daisy?

[vudu]

And LOL at ShyGuy.  I just want to say this, Reagan is the sexiest female first name ever. Not because of the president.

Is it because of The Exorcist?

[DAaaMan64]

And LOL at ShyGuy.  I just want to say this, Reagan is the sexiest female first name ever. Not because of the president.

Is it because of The Exorcist?

Could be, but it has been a long time since I've seen that movie and don't even remember who Reagan was.

Edit: Maybe it is because when you say Reagan it pretty much sounds like "Ray Gun" hahaha

[vudu]

She's the little girl who masturbates with a crucifix while shouting let Jesus **** you.

[Nick DiMola]

She's the little girl who masturbates with a crucifix while shouting let Jesus **** you.

Sounds hot.

[vudu]

Yeah, but then her head spins around and she vomits all over a priest, which totally kills the mood.

[DAaaMan64]

She's the little girl who masturbates with a crucifix while shouting let Jesus **** you.

wooh that is some fucked up **** right their.

[RABicle]

RAB: Helping those who are less fortunate is wonderful. I don't think you'll find too many people who would disagree. I've devoted a part of my time and money to charity.

With that said, there's a whole world of difference between giving money (property, etc.) to help someone out and using a gun to take money from one person and give it to someone else.

It is not charity when you're giving away someone else's money.

But you're not being held at gunpoint, it's tax and it's taken to provide for all the services that make our society function. It's just life and it's nothing to be hung up about.

I didn't mean to question your morality, of course you've given to charity, we all have. What I can't understand in general is the downward envy that is sometimes directed at welfare recipients. I'd rather be the one paying taxes than the one living off them, because it's not hard to figure out who has the better standard of living.

[DAaaMan64]

RAB: Helping those who are less fortunate is wonderful. I don't think you'll find too many people who would disagree. I've devoted a part of my time and money to charity.

With that said, there's a whole world of difference between giving money (property, etc.) to help someone out and using a gun to take money from one person and give it to someone else.

It is not charity when you're giving away someone else's money.

But you're not being held at gunpoint, it's tax and it's taken to provide for all the services that make our society function. It's just life and it's nothing to be hung up about.

Thats against the founder's theory on liberty.  It is still an imposed will another person and thus risks not understanding the situation of those who are being imposed on!  That is the nature of liberty.  We have barely experimented with liberty, it has only been 200 years.  It'd be nice if we could go beyond believing in it, and actually achieve it.  I don't think I need to tell you the value of income to those who work very hard.  That may include you!  But via the private sector, lower taxes, and more income to the general population as well as community charity. Things can be helped. There are a million private charities.

I know it isn't what you want to hear. 

And please read this again, it helps to understand liberty:

I would argue that helping those in need is a moral obligation for me as an individual(Provided I can stay afloat myself). But I don't have the moral or constitutional(this applies to federal welfare only) authority to take resources from others to put towards those who are less fortunate.

[RABicle]

Well if you destructive anarchists want to live like barbarians as issued by Friedman's neo-liberal economic ideology, just do it away from me then.

[DAaaMan64]

Well if you destructive anarchists want to live like barbarians as issued by Friedman's neo-liberal economic ideology, just do it away from me then.

Private charity, community help and localization of general assistance to the populous is far from barbaric. But then I think yoiu were joking.   Have fun RAB.

[RABicle]

I can vote out a corrupt public official. I can't do anything about a corrupt private charity worker.

[DAaaMan64]

I can vote out a corrupt public official. I can't do anything about a corrupt private charity worker.

They can be fired for not doing their job.  If they weren't following the direction the charity is supposed to follow, I mean.  You could file a complaint or raise awareness, whatever. Although I'm not sure of the incentive to do that. Also, it isn't your money paying that corrupt private charity worker.

I like how the Exorcist came up in a thread about Hillary Clinton. LOL

[animecyberrat]

The problem is the state welfare doesn't work. Trust me I have been homeless before. The private charities, churches, food banks, etc, they were all willing to help out when I was in need, well fare on the other hand is full of rules and regulations that somehow exclude those in genuine need.


There are programs that work but there are those who abuse the system and because of that it is hard for some people to get the help they need. To me it is not a matter of where the money comes from, it is a matter of how the government decides who is deserving of said help and who isn't.

[UncleBob]

Going to post some selected replies, again, trying to keep the "political" part of the equation out, while answering with the moral and social part.

Dangerous Waters there, UncleBob.  Not paying taxes is in violation of the Social Contract as ratified in the Constitution.  They are merely enforcing said contract when the IRS man comes a-knocking.

My issue isn't with paying taxes, per say.  It's the amount of taxes, the way the responsibilities of taxes are distributed and the way the benefits of the taxes are distributed.

But you're not being held at gunpoint, it's tax and it's taken to provide for all the services that make our society function. It's just life and it's nothing to be hung up about.

That's the thing about taxes - you are being held at gun point.  What happens when you don't pay your taxes?  Uncle Sam doesn't shrug his shoulders and say "Well, let's take more from the next guy."

Private charity, community help and localization of general assistance to the populous is far from barbaric.

We have a winner.

I can vote out a corrupt public official. I can't do anything about a corrupt private charity worker.

*You* cannot vote a public official out of office.  You can vote against a public official though.

Meanwhile, if a private charity is not using your donations in a way that you feel fits with your moral obligations and social duties, you can easily stop donating to that charity and find (or start) one that does.  Additionally, you may have legal recourse against the charity if they have illegally used your donations.

On the other hand, if the federal government is abusing your "donations", well, shut up and take it for another four years (and *hope* you can then vote someone in who doesn't abuse the power).

[vudu]

My issue isn't with paying taxes, per say.  It's the amount of taxes, the way the responsibilities of taxes are distributed and the way the benefits of the taxes are distributed.

The amount is relative to how much you make.  They're distributed via bullets and bombs towards unsuspecting countries.  What's the problem?

[UncleBob]

My issue isn't with paying taxes, per say.  It's the amount of taxes, the way the responsibilities of taxes are distributed and the way the benefits of the taxes are distributed.

The amount is relative to how much you make.  They're distributed via bullets and bombs towards unsuspecting countries.  What's the problem?

Well, why I can't argue that the method of distribution is pretty awe-inspiring, it seems crazy to tax achievement.

[DAaaMan64]

My issue isn't with paying taxes, per say.  It's the amount of taxes, the way the responsibilities of taxes are distributed and the way the benefits of the taxes are distributed.

The amount is relative to how much you make.  They're distributed via bullets and bombs towards unsuspecting countries.  What's the problem?

Well, why I can't argue that the method of distribution is pretty awe-inspiring, it seems crazy to tax achievement.

And before someone says we need the IRS.  If we removed the IRS we'd still have the same approximate revenue we had in 1997.

[GoldenPhoenix]

I think you are all nazis practicing occult rituals with radioactive babies.

[NWR_insanolord]

I think you are all nazis practicing occult rituals with radioactive babies.

How would you go about obtaining radioactive babies?

[IceCold]

Economic disparity always leads to social tension.

[ShyGuy]

Heck, having two genders in a species always leads to social tension.

[Svevan]

So this happened. Whoops!

or morality censorship.

What was the point of the thread then? To see how close Evan got to Clinton? To know that the "Political Undead" is just a label (phew, I suspected Umbrella were back for a minute there)?

Admit it, the thread crossed that fictional line between "acceptable use of politics" and "unacceptable use of politics".

You may claim that we are talking about video game legislation which can be independent of any political discussion but I believe that the politics behind recent legislation attempts in the USA are relevant to any discussion of the problem.

I could go on a big old tangent here about how game ratings in Australia is done by the government, and it is being used to censor games, but since we're not allowed to talk about politics it doesn't matter. I could go on about how the GTA4 release here a fortnight ago triggered a spate of "violent games trigger violent behaviour in the real world" and "think of the children" news stories. But no, we're not allowed to talk about this.

We couldn't even talk about the fact a recent investigation into the sale of M-rated games to underage buyers showed the trend is declining.

Be clear about this or lock the thread.

I BLAME EVAN

Shift Key said it, and I agree. I know my posts have toed the line, but that's the inherent problem with a site that reports on certain political issues but does not allow politics in its forums. Everyone here knows I hate the "no politics" rule, but Ty created it and he outranks me.

On the other hand, I want it to be said that if anyone else around here met a major political figure, no matter how controversial, I would expect you to report on it in the forums. Reason? Well, I didn't post this to start a debate (we're all on the same side on this issue, AFAIK). Rather I was relaying to friends a cool thing that happened to me, as in, I got to meet a major political figure. I do not "get away" with this because I am staff; Pale locks my threads all the time.

I understand why we have the no politics rule: our board has posters with diverse political beliefs, and posters who whine, bitch, and troll. Maturity, in any discussion, does not necessarily go hand in hand with Nintendo gamers. Solution? Overthrow the dictator and create your own forum government. Yes, I am actively encouraging a riot.

edit: and kudos to those discussing politics in here with maturity and respect

[DAaaMan64]

Expect us to report it when we have met a political figure? I guess I'm late to that knowledge.

You tell us to listen to the mod even if you disagree, but:

Overthrow the dictator and create your own forum government. Yes, I am actively encouraging a riot.

[GoldenPhoenix]

So show blatant disregard for the no politic rules people because Evan doesn't like it. Give me a break. I realize that you have disdain for most of us here Evan, but realize that many of us just don't think this is the appropriate places for heavily political debates. If you want to see that garbage go to the myriad of other sites out there with forums. What makes this place unique is its no politics rule but obviously you feel the need to give that rule the finger and try to warp it as much as you can without completely crossing the boundary.

You don't think we are gullible enough to think you did not intend for this to push the "no politics" rule do you? You've done the same thing before and it always ends up the same way. At least show some respect towards us and admit you had other intentions besides "OH Hillary talked about video games when I met her".

[Deguello]

Thats against the founder's theory on liberty.

What?  Welfare?  It's in the Preamble to the Constitution!  And if you are gonna name-drop "the founders" please choose one. Mainly because they all argued a whole lot and only agreed on the Constitution, even if it wasn't perfect for everybody (especially those 3/5 black peoples).  I think you think of "liberty" as a general term, when the founders were clearly thinking "liberty from England."

edit: and kudos to those discussing politics in here with maturity and respect

Give it time, Evan.  Who knows when one of those Ron Paul dead-enders or one of those confused Libertarians starts arguing with another confused Libertarian about stuff?  this is why politics discussion should probably be kept under wraps.  It's easy for tempers to get hot and people to lose respect for one another, which diminishes the original intent of the forum, mainly SSBB whining and why Mario Kart doesn't have enough Galaxy references.

[UncleBob]

"Promoting Welfare" and taking private property by force to redistribute it are two totally different things.

[DAaaMan64]

Thats against the founder's theory on liberty.

What?  Welfare?  It's in the Preamble to the Constitution!  And if you are gonna name-drop "the founders" please choose one. Mainly because they all argued a whole lot and only agreed on the Constitution, even if it wasn't perfect for everybody (especially those 3/5 black peoples).  I think you think of "liberty" as a general term, when the founders were clearly thinking "liberty from England."

I think you are miss understanding this line from the constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Oh and trust me, I KNOW they all argued a lot.  In fact the Federalists didn't even want a bill of rights, that was brought about by the anti-federalists.  Considering the Anti-feds walked out at the first convention, i'd say they barely agreed on the constitution.

Also, the Constitution was designed to force the federal government to treat everyone as an individual and an individual only regardless of the skin color, orientation, etc.  But it was never really taken seriously by the people until the civil war.

"Liberty from England" is not what they were thinking, if that were the case 3 of the founders(I'll drop names okay), John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison would have never written the Federalist Papers to deter the people away from the ideas of the Confederacy and it's Articles. The confederates actually were considering splitting up America into 4 separate territories.

[Nick DiMola]

I'm so not touching this thread. Political discussion ... not such a great idea.

[UncleBob]

It's not political, it's historical...

[DAaaMan64]

I'm so not touching this thread. Political discussion ... not such a great idea.

I've seen some rudeness. But so far we aren't doing too bad. But I'm completely indifferent about whether we discuss politics or not.

[Nick DiMola]

I'm so not touching this thread. Political discussion ... not such a great idea.

I've seen some rudeness. But so far we aren't doing too bad. But I'm completely indifferent about whether we discuss politics or not.

My feeling is that this is a game board and politics don't really have a place, except for a few very unique situations. Unfortunately, as seen in this thread bringing up politics in general tends to steer the thread into all sorts of different territory than what started the conversation. Fortunately, this thread hasn't become nasty ... yet. Eventually someone may(perhaps, will) disregard decency and it can cause all sorts of nastiness. I like everyone here and I don't want to see people get the banhammer over something stupid like politics.

[DAaaMan64]

I'm so not touching this thread. Political discussion ... not such a great idea.

I've seen some rudeness. But so far we aren't doing too bad. But I'm completely indifferent about whether we discuss politics or not.

My feeling is that this is a game board and politics don't really have a place, except for a few very unique situations. Unfortunately, as seen in this thread bringing up politics in general tends to steer the thread into all sorts of different territory than what started the conversation. Fortunately, this thread hasn't become nasty ... yet. Eventually someone may(perhaps, will) disregard decency and it can cause all sorts of nastiness. I like everyone here and I don't want to see people get the banhammer over something stupid like politics.

You could just lock the thread. LOL No ones gonna get mad or blame you Mr Jack.

[Nick DiMola]

I'm so not touching this thread. Political discussion ... not such a great idea.

I've seen some rudeness. But so far we aren't doing too bad. But I'm completely indifferent about whether we discuss politics or not.

My feeling is that this is a game board and politics don't really have a place, except for a few very unique situations. Unfortunately, as seen in this thread bringing up politics in general tends to steer the thread into all sorts of different territory than what started the conversation. Fortunately, this thread hasn't become nasty ... yet. Eventually someone may(perhaps, will) disregard decency and it can cause all sorts of nastiness. I like everyone here and I don't want to see people get the banhammer over something stupid like politics.

You could just lock the thread. LOL No ones gonna get mad or blame you Mr Jack.

I could, but I'm willing to let this go for awhile as long as it stays civil. If I see it get messy, no doubt it is getting locked.

[Kairon]

So... who here has read Starship Troopers?

[Crimm]

No more tax discussion

Please return the conversation to video games (and away from politics) or I will lock the thread.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

So... who here has read Starship Troopers?

The movie has subtitles?

[UncleBob]

What about politicians who want to put a sin tax on video game sales?

[Plugabugz]

Can we put a tax on whatever Crimm says?

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

How many points do I have?

[Crimm]

Ban by IP: *.*.*.*

[DAaaMan64]

Restarts router, ignoring Crimm.

 

[Crimm]

I can assure you *.*.*.* ain't gonna be fixed by your router.

[DAaaMan64]

Oh never mind, retard streak there. I get it.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Oh never mind, retard streak there. I get it.

I don't appreciate that politically charged NASTY word known as retard. You is such a retard, geesh.

[animecyberrat]

I will refrain from my natural response. Instead I will say this thread is getting boring.

[DAaaMan64]

Oh never mind, retard streak there. I get it.

I don't appreciate that politically charged NASTY word known as retard. You is such a retard, geesh.

Then so be it

[Plugabugz]

I can assure you *.*.*.* ain't gonna be fixed by your router.

So you're banning yourself too?

[RABicle]

I understand why we have the no politics rule: our board has posters with diverse political beliefs, and posters who whine, bitch, and troll. Maturity, in any discussion, does not necessarily go hand in hand with Nintendo gamers. Solution? Overthrow the dictator and create your own forum government. Yes, I am actively encouraging a riot.

I always thought politics discussion was banned because a particular former staffer didn't want to be chastised for his extreme social conservative views. And have people like me ridicule him about it. I wont drop any names _bloodworth but let's just say they were stupid.

Anyway. We've heard UncleBob and Daaman push their ridiculous neo liberal economic agendas, so how about some figures.
http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%20Dream%20Report.pdf
I like how America, which has significantly less welfare entitlements across the board when compared to more progressive democracies has inferior social and economic mobility. The fact is, un regulated economies without welfare create inequality. You talk about "liberty" but there will be no liberty when the majority of people cannot afford to goto school. There will be no liberty when every road is privately owned and there will certainly be no liberty when people are left to die because they cannot afford to be treated. Private charities simply cannot operate on the scale or with the effectiveness of democratic governing bodies.

EDIT: Deg pointed out a crucial tpo

[Deguello]

Also, the Constitution was designed to force the federal government to treat everyone as an individual and an individual only regardless of the skin color, orientation, etc.  But it was never really taken seriously by the people until the civil war.

That's pretty damn naive of you Daaman.  Of course they denied liberty to certain social classes and genders.  And this is also somewhat confusing.  I mean, so they were talking about the generalities of Liberty is a general way as an idea and concept, but they were micromanagingly specific about who gets it?  They were either a bunch of lofty intellectuals speaking of self-evident truths and perfect unions or they were a bunch of realistic realists who decided that separation from England was the best course of action to continue their profits, mainly due to laws imposed on them by the country they thought they were still citizens of.

Now of course, this is a false dichotomy.  It is equally possible that they were both, and only started studying liberty concepts when England's laws got a bit too hard on them.  and Ideas of Welfare in the Constitution are, say, open to interpretation.  And that's exactly what the courts are for and the power given to them by the Constitution.  To interpret it.  To abide by it Exactly, to the letter, is to say BlacknMild2k1 on our forums is worth 3/5 of a citizen.  The reason we are open to interpret the Constitution is because... well... I'll let Jefferson speak for me: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."  Makes you wonder about certain bills in said bill of rights, huh?

And as for UncleBob, I am coming over to your house and taking my property.  You may say its yours, but I say it's mine.  What are you gonna do about it?  Take me before court?  And what, ask a judge, a representative of government, to take my property, BY FORCE, and give it to you, when you have no legal claim to my property other than your word that it is yours?

Besides the actual amount of tax money that goes to welfare (by which I assume you mean programs like TANF and Food Stamps) is dwarfed in comparison to Defense.  Stop listening to reports about Welfare Queens and debtbeats as examples of government "redistribution."  You know what happens to that money... usually?  They buy either food and goods which support business, or they buy fawties, which also supports business. Or they buy drugs, and the dealers then buy rims and dubs, which also supports business. Or they pay bills, which bolster energy companies.  It;s the only time I'm happy there's a middleman, and why it's actually good to give out money to poor people.  Because they'll buy stuff with it.  CAPITALISM!

[Dasmos]

_bloodworth

I honestly thought that was written in Arabic or something.

[UncleBob]

Either lock this thread, ban those two posters or let me respond.

Quick response to Deg - come on over and try to take my stuff.  That's why we have the second amendment.  See how far you make it.

Deg's Comment:  So it's like, you're OK with distributing FORCE over other people and taking their property, simply if they are having a property dispute over whose property it is?  Man I'm glad the government runs things and not you.  You'd turn everything into Dodge City and Mad Max, blasting people away the second there's a problem.  No wonder you don't like modern government styles.

[Nick DiMola]

Either lock this thread, blah blah blah

OK