Another game-hating moron.

[FusionStorm]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6143114.html

Even tho I mostly stand republican, this guy is a loony. His own board rating games, before we know it, Mario would be considered violent.

[karajorma]

Specifically, Locke is proposing a $10,000 per-abortion tax on medical clinics that perform abortions and a 50 percent tax on all sodas "contains added glucose, fructose, sucrose to the beverage for sale to humans."

Nice to see he's picking his targets carefully there :)

[[IA]-Avarice]

Locke is proposing a $10,000 per-abortion tax on medical clinics that perform abortions

100 percent of price sales cost tax for the sale on ... any video game containing any form of human violence

50 percent tax on all soda that "contains added glucose, fructose, sucrose to the beverage for sale to humans."

I never did like texan politics, they are pretty fucked up. 100% tax on video games... WTF?!? It seems like we are dealing with a complete dickheaded fucktard!

[karajorma]

Well if my name was Starlock I'd probably want to hurt people too. :)

Oh. Star Locke. Well the playground must still have been hell.

[Hammer]

-Avarice']I never did like texan politics


This has nothing to do with him being Texan, im sure there are tools all over the country who think this, and you may watch it b/c 3 admins here are Texan:nod:

[MatthewPapa]

yea, this wont fly in texas

i would expect something like this from california however

[Black Wolf]

yea, this wont fly in texas

i would expect something like this from california however

I was under the impression that California was one of the most liberal American states, and this is clearly the product of a strongly conservative mind.

[Kyra]

all i have to say is....





BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

good luck with that election, man!

[Hammer]

I was under the impression that California was one of the most liberal American states, and this is clearly the product of a strongly conservative mind.

If im not mistaken Cali was the first state to try to push one of these stupid antigame laws

[karajorma]

Yeah but I doubt you'd see that taxing abortion and coke shit in Cali somehow.

[Star Dragon]

1.) Don't wanna get into that one...Cept to say send the bill to the govt so they are essentially taxing THEMSELVES! IF the govt doesn't pay up, sick the collection agencies on them :)

2.) Revamp all video games, make them EXTRA violent (even have extream sexual context why don't we.. Just take all the HUMANS out and replace with monsters, thus all content is considered INHUMAN, like Inhuman sex and Inhuman violence...


3.) Relable it "Coke for DOGS"... Put it in the pet isle. I hear some people eat dog/cat food.. nuff said :)


So take that and roll it in your joint and smoke it wise guy... (talking to the candidate)...


If you like my ideas and think I should be President make me a "write-in" candidate.

[[dw]-hunter]

Yeah but I doubt you'd see that taxing abortion and coke shit in Cali somehow.

Yep, we are one of the states who are pro-choice when it comes to abortion. As the saying goes, if you dont believe in abortion, DONT HAVE ONE :)

If im not mistaken Cali was the first state to try to push one of these stupid antigame laws

you do realise that proposed law was by parents, not the polititions and you all always gunna have haters, 50 million people in california, im sure your gunna have massave amounts of people trying to ban those games, but in a percentage, its small

[Nuclear]

It's reasons like these that I'm glad I live in Indiana. I don't remember the last time we Hoosiers had an utter moron like this.

[karajorma]

-hunter']Yep, we are one of the states who are pro-choice when it comes to abortion. As the saying goes, if you dont believe in abortion, DONT HAVE ONE :)

The funniest thing though is regardless of where you stand on the abortion debate I doubt you'll find many people who think the issue of sugar in carbonated beverages is an equally pressing issue :lol:

[Star Dragon]

I take MY sugar very seriously I assure you!

[Goober5000]

-hunter']Yep, we are one of the states who are pro-choice when it comes to abortion. As the saying goes, if you dont believe in abortion, DONT HAVE ONE :)

And as the old saying went, if you don't believe in slavery, don't own a slave. :p

[FusionStorm]

Haha Hunter, you got served. ;)

[Hammer]

:lol:

[[dw]-hunter]

And as the old saying went, if you don't believe in slavery, don't own a slave. :p

Got a problem with abortions now?

[Taristin]

-hunter']Got a problem with abortions now?

Good job. now you're going to get the religious lines, the right to life speech, and all the rest of that stuff.

[Nuclear]

-hunter']Got a problem with abortions now?

I think he's just pointing out that the argument isn't good enough. Sure, you can just say "let them have abortions if they want". Typically, the person having or not having an abortion would have an opinion one way or another on the issue, not just passive "let them have/not have an abortion".

Then again, complicated issue. Stick to the gaming-hating moronness. :p

[Goober5000]

-hunter']Got a problem with abortions now?

And what sort of response is that? Of course I have a problem with abortions, just like a lot of other people.

I was merely pointing out, as Nuclear said, the inadequacy of your argument. If you want to defend abortion, you'll need to come up with something a lot stronger than "if you don't like them, don't have them". You can apply that same logic to just about to any controversial topic (like slavery) and it completely avoids the central issue.

[[dw]-hunter]

I think he's just pointing out that the argument isn't good enough. Sure, you can just say "let them have abortions if they want". Typically, the person having or not having an abortion would have an opinion one way or another on the issue, not just passive "let them have/not have an abortion".

Then again, complicated issue. Stick to the gaming-hating moronness. :p

Well still my point is that this idiot wants to stop people from doing things that are a persons right, video games, abortions, etc

Of course I have a problem with abortions, just like a lot of other people.

Of course you want to take away other peoples rights :P

[FusionStorm]

I'm gonna address the post before you edited it.

Goob wasn't talking about whether you believe in abortions or not, but this part of the post that made no sense.

As the saying goes, if you dont believe in abortion, DONT HAVE ONE

[[dw]-hunter]

How does that not make sense, you yourself dont have to have an abortion thats your choice, but leave other people out of it, that is what im saying

[FusionStorm]

-hunter']How does that not make sence, you yourself dont have to have an abortion thats your choice, but leave other people out of it, that is what im saying

And as Goob said thats like saying if you don't believe in Slaves, don't own one.

Does that make slave owning right? Does that mean if I own a slave, you should keep you nose out of it and not own one? It's my choice, correct?

Of us that are against abortion think it's murder, so of course we are gonna be against it.

[[dw]-hunter]

Abortion and slavery is two totally different things...Anyways lets get off the topic of abortion because its obvious that this is going to go on forever

[Taristin]

Umm. Lets not go into discussing abortion here. I have no qualms with locking the thread.

[Nuclear]

I don't see this as going into abortion as much as it is going into how to or how not to form an argument, which could be useful.

But by all means, if this swerves too far off track, be my guest to lock it.

[Goober5000]

I'm happy to focus on just the "forming an argument" side of things, but feel free to split this off into a separate thread as it's gone rather off the original topic.

It's important to know how to construct an effective argument because one of the major problems with leftists is that they tend to use smokescreens instead of rational debate. :p

Since you seem to be unable to grasp the meaning of what I'm saying, [dw]-hunter, I'll spell it out for you: the rightness or wrongness of abortion is independent of whether I (hypothetically, because I physically can't ;)) have an abortion. Just like the rightness or wrongness of slavery is independent of whether I choose to own a slave. That's why your statement "if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one" makes no sense as a logical argument. It has no bearing on whether abortion is right or wrong.

That, of course, is assuming that you believe in a universal standard of right and wrong (whether that standard is religious or secular in origin). If you're a moral relativist, logic goes out the window and we can dismiss you as having zero credibility without need of further discussion. :)

[karajorma]

It's important to know how to construct an effective argument because one of the major problems with leftists is that they tend to use smokescreens instead of rational debate. :p

I'd be careful with comments like that. I've seen far more smokescreens from the right than the other side.

The phrase should read like this

It's important to know how to construct an effective argument because one of the major problems with idiots is that they tend to use smokescreens instead of rational debate. :p

[Goober5000]

I'd be careful with comments like that. I've seen far more smokescreens from the right than the other side.

The phrase should read like this

It's important to know how to construct an effective argument because one of the major problems with idiots is that they tend to use smokescreens instead of rational debate. :p

That works for me. :) Especially as the terms are largely synonymous. :p (*ducks*)

Though in my experience the left uses smokescreens far more often than the right. At least if you're arguing with a rightist, they have a fundamental point they're basing their argument on, even if that fundamental point is flawed (e.g. PATRIOT Act). Many leftists on the other hand will start using character attacks or change topics if they're on the losing end of an argument.

[Nuclear]

I've seen that plenty from leftists myself, Goober. I've also seen it from plenty of the right as well (e.g. Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly), so it's not as if both sides don't do it.

Don't get me wrong; I'm probably just as right-leaning as you, maybe a little less so. I'm just mentioning that I've seen issues from rightists throwing up smokescreens to deflect delicate conversations just as much as leftists.

[FusionStorm]

Yeah, I know what you guys are talking about. I would classify myself as right but not crazy right.

I've seen plenty of both sides to sour my stomach, over at the WX forum we have one guy is is soo far left that you would think sometimes he wants the US to get attacked just to see GW fall on his butt.

Then there is a guy on the other side who is just as bad most of the time.

Pretty sad to say the least. But, all along funny to see them get arguing about whitch party is more corrupt. Well, I better stop, I'm drifting into a plotical debate. :lol:

[karajorma]

Fact is that there is no cause so right you won't find idiots who believe in it.

Though in my experience the left uses smokescreens far more often than the right.

It appears that you're looking in the wrong places. If you really want to get into this I can point out several cases where the right has thrown up smokescreens both on HLP and in general.

I'm not really particularly interested in getting into a debate on which side has more idiots cause there are idiots on both sides that we can each point to and I tend to feel it works out about the same in many cases, but if you're going to continue to make a claim like that you'd better be prepared to support it.


At least if you're arguing with a rightist, they have a fundamental point they're basing their argument on, even if that fundamental point is flawed (e.g. PATRIOT Act). Many leftists on the other hand will start using character attacks or change topics if they're on the losing end of an argument.

First in most debates the left has a fundemental point too. For instance in your point about the PATRIOT act most leftists will be arguing based on the Constitution.

Secondly as Nuclear says there are plenty of right wingers who do very little but attack.

[[dw]-hunter]

Polititions are corrupt, they are always doing something to make money. Not only that but they propose things that simply wont fly. Video games for example, honestly, how many people are going to vote to put a tax on them, not very many i can tell you that much no matter what state (or country) your in, it isnt gunna happen, but you simply cant please everyone, and in my opinion, all polititions have a negitive about them, they never really consider what the general public wants they just try to apply their views, abortion, video games, soda, whatever it is in that relation just shouldnt happen, Honestly, if it involved something serious like global warming, or pollution problems, i think thats more important, because if we dont do something now, were gunna have a fucked up planet in 100-200 years, and i can garentee you that. I just dont think people think about the future they focus on now and in their life time what will happen, honestly, do you want your children living a shit life where you have to wear special clothing to protect yourself from the sun or other things in that sense? And you cant tell me this isnt gunna happen, because it already is taking effect now. Your gunna save more lives if you consider the future, so you tell me whats more important, abortion laws or something that will slow the global problem of pollution and stuff in that relations?

[Goober5000]

Paragraphs, dude. Can you say that again, more coherently?

karajorma: Fair enough; I guess experiences color perceptions and vice versa. :) I don't want to get into that sort of argument either; it just makes people mad and it's really beside the point.

[[dw]-hunter]

i was just trying to prove a point there.

[ZipperBlues]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6143114.html

Even tho I mostly stand republican, this guy is a loony. His own board rating games, before we know it, Mario would be considered violent.

The hat just says it all, doesn't it? Thank god his proposed bill is gonna go down just like all the others.

As far as I'm concerned, when you're a gamer, your political leanings have little to no meaning. These politicians just can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that videogames are not just for kids.

Or rather, htey don't want to, because wasting the tax payer's dollars like this gets a few more soccar moms to vote for them.