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

[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.