Rush Limbaugh against Video Game Sin Tax

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

I was in my wife's car today without XM radio and could not take the FM channels anymore so I started flipping through the AM stations and started listening to Rush Limbaugh. He made a very logical argument against the new violent video game taxes being proposed in Missouri and in Oklahoma. He argued that these taxes impeded upon first amendment rights and were a form of censorship. He stated that if they can create a sin tax on violent video games what is to stop them from taxing violent movies books and art. From there what is to stop them from taxing other forms of expression that they disagree with.

At first I was surprised that Rush, as an older conservative was taking a logical stance in favor of video games but then I realized he wasn't so much a social/religious conservative as he was simply anti-government and anti-liberal. I was less surprised when he said that many gamers were lazy young liberals that voted democrat and were likely to cry about these new taxes even though they like to scream for taxes on others. Despite the inflammatory rhetoric(I think a mention of basement dwelling was thrown in there) it is good to see that even the most hardcore Republican voices sees the idiocy of any attempt to censor the medium that we love.

Fuck me, I have to agree with the drug addled pile of repugnant filth... somewhat. Even when he's right in my mind I still hate him for it because he finds some way to insult me.

I wouldn't say all hardcore republicans. The moral guardian brand of republican(comes in democrat flavor too) would just love to censor anything they don't agree with by any means possible. If you don't want your kids playing violent video games, there are a whole host of options at your disposal, but most of them involve actually being a parent, so they aren't easy.

It's a shame that, according to you, he went from making a good point to shitting on liberals just for the hell of it.

Since I live in Koala land where all games are ridiculously overpriced, I can only imagine how much further I'd be pissed off if my murder simulators carried an extra $10 pricetag to the already bullshit cost.

Hope it doesn't happen in America.

Why do I suddenly support a 100% video game tax?

In reality, it's probably not going to happen. The taxes would be completely legal, along the same lines of sales and alcohol taxes, but no one really wants to go on record as being a politician who introduced a tax on specific kind of media.

He's still a social conservative. Find out about his views on gays and religions other than judeo-Christianity for confirmation on that.

He generally is rather anti-censorship. It honestly isn't that surprising, especially considering that most attacks on the video game industry come from both sides of the aisle, as does support.

Sometimes I love Rush and sometimes I hate him, and this is one of those times when I love him. There are some opinions he holds that I disagree with, and sometimes he expresses those opinions to such a degree that it is grating and hard to respect. But unlike many pundits, I've found I rarely disagree with the way in which he disagrees with things, and by that I mean the logic behind it. So many conservatives in the media (politicians included) fall into the trap of supporting every "conservative effort" without even questioning the logic behind it. They aren't driven by wanting to see America brought to its fullest and its founding principles honored. They're just hopping every bandwagon that pulls up and offers them the piles of money they desire.

But to me, Rush stands out from that crowd because he'll do things like this. He'll take something that is such an easy and beloved target for mainstream conservatives--including highly influential groups like the NRA--and will say no. This isn't right. He isn't driven by the ebb and flow of conservative trends, at least not in all cases. There are places he draws the line, and I highly respect that about him. I don't listen to him, mostly out of a lack of interest and a lack of a reliable means to do so, but things like this that he does do make me smile. And he makes me smile a lot more often than people like O'Reilly or Huckabee do.

A republican opposing taxes? Stop the presses!

jetriot:
At first I was surprised that Rush, as an older conservative was taking a logical stance in favor of video games but then I realized he wasn't so much a social/religious conservative as he was simply anti-government and anti-liberal.

The group that still thinks modern music, television and videogames are a way go gain demonic posession are only a part of the conservative thinking. A dwindling part too, as their views are so insane that even among US conservatives their numbers are falling.

Sometimes such an issue is a good way for guys like him to disagree with the crazies for once and appear a bit more sane. Good example of this phenomenon is Ron Paul. A stereotypical conservative; a racist rich white man who's hardcore anti-freedom and for imposing religion.
...But he also wants to legalise marijuana. This wins him the pothead vote, a group that normally wouldn't vote for such extremist conservatives. And the Paulites (his disciples) use this one trait to claim he's different from the rest of the conservatives.

Don't expect someone like Rush or his ideological bedfellows to be anything but a threat to you just because they happen to disagree on whether a cartoon from the 90's is a satanic conspiracy.

*shrug* Don't generally consider it much news when someone does something that isn't bad.

It's amusing since if it were someone more sane no one would find it worth talking about it when they did something sane. It's not as if it does him much credit to not be crazy on one issue.

This is why I have a problem when I see partisan people attack a person or a party rather than specific ideas. The problem with saying "Rush is an idiot and I disagree with him", is that "Rush Limbaugh" is not a true or false statement, its a person. A person is capable of holding any number of positions, and even capable of changing their position.

To say, "Mr. X is wrong on position Y" is a valid statement. To say "Mr. X is wrong" is a completely illogical argument.

cthulhuspawn82:
This is why I have a problem when I see partisan people attack a person or a party rather than specific ideas. The problem with saying "Rush is an idiot and I disagree with him", is that "Rush Limbaugh" is not a true or false statement, its a person. A person is capable of holding any number of positions, and even capable of changing their position.

To say, "Mr. X is wrong on position Y" is a valid statement. To say "Mr. X is wrong" is a completely illogical argument.

It's still fair to call him an idiot if most of his positions are stupid.

Further, please, do show us where someone says "Mr. X is wrong" when not referring to a specific position. Because quite frankly I don't see anyone say "Mr. X is wrong" without further context to the situation that implies they're talking about something more specific than 'Everything Mr. X believes'

Theres a saying about that; even broken clocks are right twice a day.

Blablahb:

jetriot:
At first I was surprised that Rush, as an older conservative was taking a logical stance in favor of video games but then I realized he wasn't so much a social/religious conservative as he was simply anti-government and anti-liberal.

The group that still thinks modern music, television and videogames are a way go gain demonic posession are only a part of the conservative thinking. A dwindling part too, as their views are so insane that even among US conservatives their numbers are falling.

Sometimes such an issue is a good way for guys like him to disagree with the crazies for once and appear a bit more sane. Good example of this phenomenon is Ron Paul. A stereotypical conservative; a racist rich white man who's hardcore anti-freedom and for imposing religion.
...But he also wants to legalise marijuana. This wins him the pothead vote, a group that normally wouldn't vote for such extremist conservatives. And the Paulites (his disciples) use this one trait to claim he's different from the rest of the conservatives.

Don't expect someone like Rush or his ideological bedfellows to be anything but a threat to you just because they happen to disagree on whether a cartoon from the 90's is a satanic conspiracy.

I am sorry. What?!? Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He doesn't have religious views that he wants to push upon anyone and he believe in MORE freedom than any other political party except anarchists. He is anti-war, anti-drug-war, anti-regulating-marriage and against the state limiting ANY liberties unless those liberties infringe upon others' freedoms. You seriously need to brush up on your poli-sci because you are currently a very low information voter.

I heard "Sin Tax" and immediately stopped reading.

This isnt the 15th century, fuck that shit.

Well, you know, a broken clock...

Just because he happens to have said something sensible doesn't mean he's any less of a douchebag in my eyes.

jetriot:

I am sorry. What?!? Ron Paul is a Libertarian.

Only half right.

He believes in preventing FEDERAL oppression, but if your STATE wants to oppress you, he's just fine with it.

He doesn't have religious views that he wants to push upon anyone and he believe in MORE freedom than any other political party except anarchists.

Yet he wanted to overturn the Civil Rights Act and also was in favor of overturning Lawrence V Texas...you know, the SC decision that says that your state can't fucking throw you in jail for consentual gay sex.

Amazingly, people who work in media, particularly if their job in the media is not to report factual news but to give political commentary, tend to care about issues of censorship across party lines.

Doesn't change the fact that someone who believes raping children in the arse is okay if the guy doing it is a member of the armed forces isn't deserving of the oxygen he's breathing.

GunsmithKitten:

jetriot:

I am sorry. What?!? Ron Paul is a Libertarian.

Only half right.

He believes in preventing FEDERAL oppression, but if your STATE wants to oppress you, he's just fine with it.

He doesn't have religious views that he wants to push upon anyone and he believe in MORE freedom than any other political party except anarchists.

Yet he wanted to overturn the Civil Rights Act and also was in favor of overturning Lawrence V Texas...you know, the SC decision that says that your state can't fucking throw you in jail for consentual gay sex.

He isn't against civil rights, he is against the Civil Rights Act because it gave the federal government unprecedented power over private business and private property. He also said anti-sodomy laws are rediculous but said the Lawrence V Texas used imaginary constitutional language that gave privacy a priority over the 9th and 10th amendments(State rights). He doesn't want states to pass stupid laws, he just believe the fed should follow the constitution.

GunsmithKitten:

jetriot:

I am sorry. What?!? Ron Paul is a Libertarian.

Only half right.

He believes in preventing FEDERAL oppression, but if your STATE wants to oppress you, he's just fine with it.

He doesn't have religious views that he wants to push upon anyone and he believe in MORE freedom than any other political party except anarchists.

Yet he wanted to overturn the Civil Rights Act and also was in favor of overturning Lawrence V Texas...you know, the SC decision that says that your state can't fucking throw you in jail for consentual gay sex.

Half right on the Lawrence v Texas. This is what Paul said:

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights - rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards

He is against the idea that the federal government can step in and say a state is wrong and force them to follow it. This same deal is occurring now with the marijuana dispensaries in CA, and some people in CO getting arrested for what is legal in their state.

KEM10:

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights - rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards

Exactly. It's not oppression if it's your state throwing you in prison for your private sexual behavior, only if the federals do it. I'm sure that'd make any arrested gays feel better, wouldn't it?

Screw Ron Paul. Screw faux libertarian thinking like that.

jetriot:

He isn't against civil rights, he is against the Civil Rights Act because it gave the federal government unprecedented power over private business and private property.

In other words, he was okay with American businesses practicing racial segregation, which I have no doubt would continue in several states if the federals hadn't put their iron fist down.

He doesn't want states to pass stupid laws]

But they should be allowed to do so, including ones that directly oppress minorities? That's not a lover of liberty, that's a fucking communitarian, and communitarians make me sick with rage.

GunsmithKitten:

KEM10:

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights - rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards

Exactly. It's not oppression if it's your state throwing you in prison for your private sexual behavior, only if the federals do it. I'm sure that'd make any arrested gays feel better, wouldn't it?

Screw Ron Paul. Screw faux libertarian thinking like that.

Wow, you really changed the direction on that. He is against the idea of Federal mandates overpowering the State's laws. He was against the sodomy laws that were in effect, but he believes that State rights are more important than his beliefs because now there is a precedent. This is similar to the Voltaire ideology.
I also noticed how you ignored a modernized example of the same scenario that libertarians are also against (federal police arresting people for marijuana in CA and CO) that I included in hopes to help you understand my point.

KEM10:

GunsmithKitten:

KEM10:

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights - rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards

Exactly. It's not oppression if it's your state throwing you in prison for your private sexual behavior, only if the federals do it. I'm sure that'd make any arrested gays feel better, wouldn't it?

Screw Ron Paul. Screw faux libertarian thinking like that.

Wow, you really changed the direction on that. He is against the idea of Federal mandates overpowering the State's laws. He was against the sodomy laws that were in effect, but he believes that State rights are more important than his beliefs because now there is a precedent. This is similar to the Voltaire ideology.
I also noticed how you ignored a modernized example of the same scenario that libertarians are also against (federal police arresting people for marijuana in CA and CO) that I included in hopes to help you understand my point.

But don't tell me that a peson is a lover of freedom or liberty when he also is approving of states treating gays as sex offenders via their state laws.

GunsmithKitten:

KEM10:

GunsmithKitten:

Exactly. It's not oppression if it's your state throwing you in prison for your private sexual behavior, only if the federals do it. I'm sure that'd make any arrested gays feel better, wouldn't it?

Screw Ron Paul. Screw faux libertarian thinking like that.

Wow, you really changed the direction on that. He is against the idea of Federal mandates overpowering the State's laws. He was against the sodomy laws that were in effect, but he believes that State rights are more important than his beliefs because now there is a precedent. This is similar to the Voltaire ideology.
I also noticed how you ignored a modernized example of the same scenario that libertarians are also against (federal police arresting people for marijuana in CA and CO) that I included in hopes to help you understand my point.

But don't tell me that a peson is a lover of freedom or liberty when he also is approving of states treating gays as sex offenders via their state laws.

To me, that just looks like a consistent political position. Principles do not always result in a favorable outcome, but they do result in more concrete ideologies.

I have this to add to the main topic of this thread: capitalism and liberty are entirely compatible with conservatism. They are less compatible with modern conservatism, an inconsistent political ideology hijacked by the theocratic religious right. I don't know much about Rush Limbaugh, but I do know that being for capitalism and freedom of speech is not inconsistent with many strains of conservatism--just like trampling free speech is not inconsistent with many strains of modern liberalism.

GunsmithKitten:

KEM10:

GunsmithKitten:

Exactly. It's not oppression if it's your state throwing you in prison for your private sexual behavior, only if the federals do it. I'm sure that'd make any arrested gays feel better, wouldn't it?

Screw Ron Paul. Screw faux libertarian thinking like that.

Wow, you really changed the direction on that. He is against the idea of Federal mandates overpowering the State's laws. He was against the sodomy laws that were in effect, but he believes that State rights are more important than his beliefs because now there is a precedent. This is similar to the Voltaire ideology.
I also noticed how you ignored a modernized example of the same scenario that libertarians are also against (federal police arresting people for marijuana in CA and CO) that I included in hopes to help you understand my point.

But don't tell me that a peson is a lover of freedom or liberty when he also is approving of states treating gays as sex offenders via their state laws.

And don't tell me to screw my "faux libertarian thinking" when you still don't understand that the small freedoms that you or I may have are some how better than the freedoms of the population of an entire state.

KEM10:

GunsmithKitten:

KEM10:

Wow, you really changed the direction on that. He is against the idea of Federal mandates overpowering the State's laws. He was against the sodomy laws that were in effect, but he believes that State rights are more important than his beliefs because now there is a precedent. This is similar to the Voltaire ideology.
I also noticed how you ignored a modernized example of the same scenario that libertarians are also against (federal police arresting people for marijuana in CA and CO) that I included in hopes to help you understand my point.

But don't tell me that a peson is a lover of freedom or liberty when he also is approving of states treating gays as sex offenders via their state laws.

And don't tell me to screw my "faux libertarian thinking" when you still don't understand that the small freedoms that you or I may have are some how better than the freedoms of the population of an entire state.

If you're okay with a state oppressing minorities, then I will continue to tell you to screw your faux libertarian thinking.

GunsmithKitten:

KEM10:

GunsmithKitten:

But don't tell me that a peson is a lover of freedom or liberty when he also is approving of states treating gays as sex offenders via their state laws.

And don't tell me to screw my "faux libertarian thinking" when you still don't understand that the small freedoms that you or I may have are some how better than the freedoms of the population of an entire state.

If you're okay with a state oppressing minorities, then I will continue to tell you to screw your faux libertarian thinking.

Only if you're okay with a federal government that thinks it is okay to violate its own rules.

KEM10:

GunsmithKitten:

KEM10:

And don't tell me to screw my "faux libertarian thinking" when you still don't understand that the small freedoms that you or I may have are some how better than the freedoms of the population of an entire state.

If you're okay with a state oppressing minorities, then I will continue to tell you to screw your faux libertarian thinking.

Only if you're okay with a federal government that thinks it is okay to violate its own rules.

I'm not. I simply think there are liberties that NO government, regardless of level, should be allowed to touch. Not Federal. Not State. Not County. Ron Paul disagrees and is okay with personal liberties being trampled so long as it's not the federals doing it, and I find little comfort in that.

GunsmithKitten:

jetriot:

He isn't against civil rights, he is against the Civil Rights Act because it gave the federal government unprecedented power over private business and private property.

In other words, he was okay with American businesses practicing racial segregation, which I have no doubt would continue in several states if the federals hadn't put their iron fist down.

He doesn't want states to pass stupid laws]

But they should be allowed to do so, including ones that directly oppress minorities? That's not a lover of liberty, that's a fucking communitarian, and communitarians make me sick with rage.

I am also ok with American businesses practicing racial segregation. It is their property and their business. Who am I or you to tell them who they and and can not serve. I would hope that they go out of business because of their stupid beliefs but it is not my or your or the majority's right to tell them, at the point of a gun, who they must serve.

As for your other point. There is nothing wrong with standing for your principles even when it harms a cause you believe in. Government must adhere to its laws and the Constitution or it gains the ability to stop serving the people and start serving itself.

Anyway, you have already conceded that Ron Paul does not believe religion has a place in government and you can not claim he is a racist for standing for limited government. Your arguments are incredibly flawed. Ron Paul stands more for freedom and liberty than any Democrat in the federal government and nearly every Republican. His definition of freedom means individual choice and liberty. Yours means choice and liberty that you want people to have while stripping them of choices you don't think they should be allowed to make.

I'm not. I simply think there are liberties that NO government, regardless of level, should be allowed to touch. Not Federal. Not State. Not County. Ron Paul disagrees and is okay with personal liberties being trampled so long as it's not the federals doing it, and I find little comfort in that.

Except that he agrees with you. He simply didn't agree with the way in which it was done. You argument is basically like saying someone agrees with rape because they don't agree that rapists should be tossed in an incinerator. His disagreement with a process has no correlation to the end result of that process.

jetriot:
I was in my wife's car today without XM radio and could not take the FM channels anymore so I started flipping through the AM stations and started listening to Rush Limbaugh. He made a very logical argument against the new violent video game taxes being proposed in Missouri and in Oklahoma. He argued that these taxes impeded upon first amendment rights and were a form of censorship. He stated that if they can create a sin tax on violent video games what is to stop them from taxing violent movies books and art. From there what is to stop them from taxing other forms of expression that they disagree with.

wait a sec, this sounds somewhat reasonable....oh god

(black clouds envelope the Earth)

At first I was surprised that Rush, as an older conservative was taking a logical stance in favor of video games but then I realized he wasn't so much a social/religious conservative as he was simply anti-government and anti-liberal. I was less surprised when he said that many gamers were lazy young liberals that voted democrat and were likely to cry about these new taxes even though they like to scream for taxes on others. Despite the inflammatory rhetoric(I think a mention of basement dwelling was thrown in there) it is good to see that even the most hardcore Republican voices sees the idiocy of any attempt to censor the medium that we love.

...and balanced was restored to the force.

I don't understand why a liberal would whine about a video games tax ...

Everyone knows they just steal them online.

jetriot:

Except that he agrees with you. He simply didn't agree with the way in which it was done. You argument is basically like saying someone agrees with rape because they don't agree that rapists should be tossed in an incinerator. His disagreement with a process has no correlation to the end result of that process.p

not even close to the same thing. Ron Paul's beliefs directly enable my rights to be trampled on by the state and county. He would give them the power to oppress me, something that the federal government took away from them. I have nothing but disgust for anyone who would enable a government to do such a thing. And I have nothing but disgust for you for wanting to enable racial segregation in this country, something that people got killed to fight against. You and I are done, sir, kindly go to hell and take your communitarian garbage with you.

Vegosiux:
Well, you know, a broken clock...

Just because he happens to have said something sensible doesn't mean he's any less of a douchebag in my eyes.

Yes, he knows the implications of infringement on the first amendment, censorship and slippery slopes and is looking to preserve his own interest.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked