U.S. Representative Wants to Treat Exposure to Violent Games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

I would be OK with this if it wouldn't be tax. Example if there would be sticker "x% of this game's price goes towards national Mental Health program".

But forcing a tax. This is going to make people who don't want to pay it to pirate. Buy online from outside the borders or tax evade in some other way.

Also... This might bring media prices on games up so much that buying games from America that are cheaper than here (Not only because of currency) is going to stop. At least I will stop..

Baresark:

Zachary Amaranth:

Baresark:
You are assuming I'm assuming, but I am not.

I'm not assuming anything. Don't got putting words in my mouth even as you accuse me of the same sort of negative action. It's poor form.

You have accused me of ignorance, false assumptions, and given vague examples of numerous instances that supposedly support your claim. That's a conspiracy theory, and one "sheeple" away from the perfect storm.

If you wish me to discuss this further, I would be happy. Just give me something tangible to discuss, rather than vague statements with no actual proof and continuous evasion. Not to mention attempting to finger-point at me instead of those.

OK, you want examples:

Education: The government funnels money into school systems that need it. The money is never spent on tangible things that benefit the students directly. A program needs new text books, they get some but not enough to accommodate all their students or they departments are left squabbling over who gets it. I'll use my local state as an example, that is New Jersey. Newark School system spends in the neighborhood of $44k per student but even though that number has almost doubled since 2000, they still don't have new textbooks, more teachers, clean schools, etc. That is one example of how money spent for the improvement of schools for the benefits of students sees no actual improvement for students despite ever increasing cost of schooling.

Road systems: I'll use the State of PA as an example on this one because I would imagine that every single person who knows anything about politics and money are familiar with the debacle that is the Garden State Parkway and it's construction and ever increasing cost. So, the people in the State of Pennsylvania pay ever increasing road taxes. The issue isn't them paying the taxes, but the coffers almost completely emptied by the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburg. so when the roads need to be repaired in a place like State College, it goes undone because they won't properly allocate funds to the rest of the road systems.

War on Drugs: The Federal government spends billions of dollars per year (it's estimated that since January 1st of this year they have spent $2.324 Billion at the time of this typing) on trying to prohibit the influx of drugs into the US. They not only hire law enforcement that is just for that, but the bulk of the US prison population is from that fruitless war. Yet, there has been no noticeable fall in availability of illegal drugs, and the bulk of their work catches marijuana users and dealers and not so much for the actual bad drugs, such as heroine and cocaine.

There, three examples off the top of my head. I still think it's silly that you would call bad and inefficient spending a conspiracy theory.

You're talking vagueries with no specific evidence. That doesn't do anything to dissuade me from the notion that it is a conspiracy theory.

Let me offer a way of an example. Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists are mentioning the way a man was chased from the scene and "never mentioned again." This is part of the conspiracy. Of course, the guy was a janitor who cheesed it when the cops showed up. There was nothing suspicious, so they didn't really continue harping on it. But it was not "never mentioned again."

You're still speaking in vagueries and offering up things which are not evidence of your point. You point out that the war of drugs is futile and back up the notion by pointing negligible impact on drug rates, but that doesn't back up the notion that the money never goes to where it's intended. You started off saying that the Government was using a hot button topic to get gullible people to support a tax because they needed a new source of revenue. You're pointing to ineffectual programs, a completely different story.

Sorry, you don't have a legitimate argument here.

Zachary Amaranth:

Baresark:
snip

OK, you want examples:

Education: The government funnels money into school systems that need it. The money is never spent on tangible things that benefit the students directly. A program needs new text books, they get some but not enough to accommodate all their students or they departments are left squabbling over who gets it. I'll use my local state as an example, that is New Jersey. Newark School system spends in the neighborhood of $44k per student but even though that number has almost doubled since 2000, they still don't have new textbooks, more teachers, clean schools, etc. That is one example of how money spent for the improvement of schools for the benefits of students sees no actual improvement for students despite ever increasing cost of schooling.

Road systems: I'll use the State of PA as an example on this one because I would imagine that every single person who knows anything about politics and money are familiar with the debacle that is the Garden State Parkway and it's construction and ever increasing cost. So, the people in the State of Pennsylvania pay ever increasing road taxes. The issue isn't them paying the taxes, but the coffers almost completely emptied by the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburg. so when the roads need to be repaired in a place like State College, it goes undone because they won't properly allocate funds to the rest of the road systems.

War on Drugs: The Federal government spends billions of dollars per year (it's estimated that since January 1st of this year they have spent $2.324 Billion at the time of this typing) on trying to prohibit the influx of drugs into the US. They not only hire law enforcement that is just for that, but the bulk of the US prison population is from that fruitless war. Yet, there has been no noticeable fall in availability of illegal drugs, and the bulk of their work catches marijuana users and dealers and not so much for the actual bad drugs, such as heroine and cocaine.

There, three examples off the top of my head. I still think it's silly that you would call bad and inefficient spending a conspiracy theory.

You're talking vagueries with no specific evidence. That doesn't do anything to dissuade me from the notion that it is a conspiracy theory.

Let me offer a way of an example. Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists are mentioning the way a man was chased from the scene and "never mentioned again." This is part of the conspiracy. Of course, the guy was a janitor who cheesed it when the cops showed up. There was nothing suspicious, so they didn't really continue harping on it. But it was not "never mentioned again."

You're still speaking in vagueries and offering up things which are not evidence of your point. You point out that the war of drugs is futile and back up the notion by pointing negligible impact on drug rates, but that doesn't back up the notion that the money never goes to where it's intended. You started off saying that the Government was using a hot button topic to get gullible people to support a tax because they needed a new source of revenue. You're pointing to ineffectual programs, a completely different story.

Sorry, you don't have a legitimate argument here.

You only feel like rebutting one of my examples? You compared my recorded examples of money not going where it's supposed to, to the sandy hook conspiracies. I am not afraid to say that you do not have a point. We'll throw out the the war on drugs and you are still left with two solid examples of my point. And you compare it to the crazy conspiracy theory that Sandy Hook was staged?

All you are saying is you disagree, but that is it. You haven't rolled out any examples showing me that I'm wrong. You are simply trying to ignore my points and call them conspiracy theories as some useless way of doing what exactly? Discrediting me in some fashion. You are completely clueless and as obtuse as any of those conspiracy theorists yourself.

Baresark:

You only feel like rebutting one of my examples?

Do you really want your other ones crushed, too? The highway example isn't a case of not being allocated properly but money not ending up in all the places it's needed. Still doesn't fit your conspiracy theory. Do I need to go for strike three, or can you still not understand how these fail to jive with your initial claim?

Zachary Amaranth:

Baresark:

You only feel like rebutting one of my examples?

Do you really want your other ones crushed, too? The highway example isn't a case of not being allocated properly but money not ending up in all the places it's needed. Still doesn't fit your conspiracy theory. Do I need to go for strike three, or can you still not understand how these fail to jive with your initial claim?

Haha, you are kidding right. You just proved my point. You don't have any idea what you are talking about. The highway example shows that parts of the state are taking money from other parts of the state. In other words, it's not being spent on the people who payed the taxes. You can't crush anything, let alone my examples. Haha, I would be afraid of your strike three, you are going to stumble and fall on your face, and I hate to see people suffer.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here