so you dont pay attention then, made evident by the comic strip

No. I just assume you're wrong for not agreeing with me.

Since I am always right. Therefore, you are wrong.

well, your comic strip was like the exact opposite of what happened in the video, i have to assume that

A) you didnt watch the video

B) dont pay attention

c) have a huge bias against FOX news, just like all the writers on this site, so you say false and innaccurate things about them

What I said up there is 100% truth.

How about funding for schools to get videogames in schools to educate kids?  Figures that Fox would spin it as it did.

The U.S Army CONTRACTED ATARI to convert Battlezone over to be a simulator of one of their vehicles, to train soldiers.  The US Army built America's Army, and another program, to interested Teens in a life in the military.  I also believe I saw a promo, where the U.S military was giving away commercial videogames, FPS and RTS titles, to interested teens in them I believe.

So, should there be a ban on the military doing this?  Does anyone think ANY videogame companies, out of the goodness of their heart, are doing anything free for the department of defense?  I want to hear those who are against videogame projects funded by the government, for educational purposes in schools, explain why what the U.S military did was ok.  I keep hearing how we need to change the way education works, and get it up to date.  Exactly HOW is not using the medium of computer software, going to help here?

So you support suicide booths built and run completely with private dollars to off the poor in a country that depend on government assistance to stay a live?  Or, is it just the FUNCTIONS of society that you believe should be privatized, without any government?  Like, you support a privately run military collecting subscription fees from individuals in order to be protected.  In the case of an invasion, foreign invaders would selectively take over property in a country.  It would be like a city that ended up only providing fire fighting protection to those outside their jurisdiction, who paid to receive their service.  In that situation, a guy who didn't pay had his house burn down, while the fire department stood around making sure a neighbor who did pay, didn't have his house catch fire. 

From a functional standpoint, another way to view it is this.  Imagine the tax rate is set at X.  The government taxes people the same rate, but then decides to give some people money back who do certain things.  When the government offers selective tax breaks to favor certain industries, it ends up picking one over the other, usually the one with the best lobbying efforts and ability to buy politicians through campaign support.  Only time you can say that a tax break isn't like giving them money is when the tax break WITHOUT qualifier, is applied across the board.

When the government gives tax credits or subsidies to a particular industry what they’re really doing is acknowledging that the business environment they have built within their country is having a punitive effect on business; and correcting this for a handful of well-connected businesses or industries. It would make far more sense to eliminate these and to give everyone a lower tax rate, and to stop playing favourites; but that will probably never happen in the United States

And this is arguably worse than a situation where the NEA gives out small grants to videogame makers to produce content for schools that could prove to more effective at educating kids.  Of course, one can end up tweaking the systems so states and local school districts have greater say into what is funded, and have it so the makers can either compete for the funds or they can collectively pool funds.  The main argument involving the NEA here is that it would be beneficial to have market input into what is going on, rather than merely some beurocrats picking what should be used.  The bringing in Call of Duty, Mario, and other videogames that have NOTHING to do with NEA funding, turns what should be informational, into an agenda piece.  And to say, "Well Fox and Friends" isn't under Fox news department is nonsense, because the Fox News network is supposed to be a NEWS network.  In short, Fox News does an incredible injustice to actually attempting to provide useful information to decide, and instead, engages in spin that shows a near total breach of professionalism.  And, if you can't see this here, then you have a pro-Fox News bias.  Note: You here is meant as a "if the shoe fits..." and isn't directed, without distinction, at HappySquirrel.