California Law Banning State Travel Sets Dangerous Sports Precedent

[Troglodyte]

Yep they do. This is the very reason for out of state tuition. We all get that, except...



Let me remind you of your post, since you're too simple to figure this out. You state: ""When it comes to subsidies from state taxes, those should go to its state resident students.""

Translation: Taxpayer dollars should go to state residents of said school.

There's no misinterpreting that.

So I'm calling out YOUR ridiculous idea.

If the tax dollars go ONLY to students of the state (again this is YOUR proposal), then therefore those dollars must NOT go to out of state students.

Explain how taxpayer dollars can only go to in-state students and not to out of state students?

Since you're too stupid, or you're being obtuse, I'll answer for you. Your proposal, which all began with sports teams not being able to use taxpayer dollars, then morphed into you saying taxpayer dollars should go only to resident students - is both a) a stupid proposal, and b) impossible to make happen.

I gave examples.

- Buildings on campuses are built with a blend of taxpayer, alumni donated, and school generated dollars. If an out of state student attends classes in said building, that student is benefiting from state taxpayer dollars.
- Sidewalks on campuses are built with a blend of taxpayer, alumni donated, and school generated dollars. If an out of state student walks on those sidewalks, that student is benefiting from state taxpayer dollars.
- Stadiums on campuses are built with a blend of taxpayer, alumni donated, and school generated dollars. If an out of state student attends a game in the stadium, that student is benefiting from state taxpayer dollars.
- Libraries on campuses are built with a blend of taxpayer, alumni donated, and school generated dollars. If an out of state student studies in that library, that student is benefiting from state taxpayer dollars.

Your proposal - trying to limit taxpayer dollars to being spent only on in-state students - is impossible to achieve. It cannot be done. Out of state students will always experience some benefit of the taxpayer-funded buildings, staff, events, etc provided at a university.

Now, do you have any other brilliant ideas?

And here I thought you came to your senses and realized you didn't have a point. But no, you spend a couple days trying to form an argument that an out of state student PAYING MORE MONEY than an in state student, to use the same facilities and get the same education, is the one benefiting from state tax funds. You haven't successfully argued that and you should stop trying. You're obviously frustrated and angry with how this discussion has gone.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

And here I thought you came to your senses and realized you didn't have a point. But no, you spend a couple days trying to form an argument that an out of state student PAYING MORE MONEY than an in state student, to use the same facilities and get the same education, is the one benefiting from state tax funds. You haven't successfully argued that and you should stop trying. You're obviously frustrated and angry with how this discussion has gone.

I've been traveling west coast to east coast. Trust me, you're the last of my priorities.

You want to keep going round and round on this, and we've established long ago comprehension isn't a strong suit of yours.

So let me repost - for the 30th time - your statement: "When it comes to subsidies from state taxes, those should go to its state resident students."

So (again your statement) if the state taxes should go to state resident students, how do you make sure the state taxes go to those students and not out of state students?

Look forward to your answer.

 

[Troglodyte]

I've been traveling west coast to east coast. Trust me, you're the last of my priorities.

You want to keep going round and round on this, and we've established long ago comprehension isn't a strong suit of yours.

So let me repost - for the 30th time - your statement: "When it comes to subsidies from state taxes, those should go to its state resident students."

So (again your statement) if the state taxes should go to state resident students, how do you make sure the state taxes go to those students and not out of state students?

Look forward to your answer.

I just encouraged you to drop it, how is that wanting to go round and round?

For the third or fourth time: How are the out of state student, who pay more, benefiting form anything the in state students are not? How have state universities not used any out of state tuition on their facilities, etc? You don't have a point here, trust me.

 

[Tibs]

You don't have a point here, trust me.

You're just encouraging him. Tim loves hearing his own voice while arguing with himself.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

How are the out of state student, who pay more, benefiting form anything the in state students are not? .

That isn't your original premise and not what you originally claimed. You claimed (39th repost): When it comes to subsidies from state taxes, those should go to its state resident students.

I've asked you to substantiate how the University would funnel taxpayer dollars to state resident students.

You can't/won't answer and shift the argument to the out of state students. That isn't your argument you posted, now was it?

So I ask again, how would a state university funnel state taxes to state resident students (you didn't say all students - you said "those should go to its state resident students.") I think you said something about cost accounting.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I just encouraged you to drop it, how is that wanting to go round and round?

For the third or fourth time: How are the out of state student, who pay more, benefiting form anything the in state students are not? How have state universities not used any out of state tuition on their facilities, etc? You don't have a point here, trust me.

"When it comes to subsidies from state taxes, those should go to its state resident students."​

Oh and I get what you were trying to say and got it the first time, thus me saying this would be fun having you try to justify the claim. I've enjoyed exposing your ineffective communication capabilities and your never-ending waffling and dancing in so doing. Your statement was very poorly framed, set in absolutes that make achieving the premise impossible.

The easiest way for you to end this is to either admit that your statement was incredibly poorly worded Or you can substantiate how a Univesity can direct state taxpayer dollars to their in-state students. The statement directly indicates that the dollars should go to in-state students, inferring "not to out of state students."

Doesn't matter to me which path you choose.

 

[Troglodyte]

The easiest way for you to end this is to either admit that your statement was incredibly poorly worded Or you can substantiate how a Univesity can direct state taxpayer dollars to their in-state students. The statement directly indicates that the dollars should go to in-state students, inferring "not to out of state students."

Doesn't matter to me which path you choose.

The easiest way for me to end this? How about you just call me "psycho" and my fiancé "low IQ and crazy" and we call it a day?

It's common knowledge that the in state students use the SAME facilities and receive the SAME instruction as the out of state students, nothing of the sort was inferred. That's you trying to win this argument.

 

[CoolieMan]

**** cali and their stupid ******* ban....no one gives a **** if they allow travel to states that know how to handle their business and are not losing companies left and right

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

It's common knowledge that the in state students use the SAME facilities and receive the SAME instruction as the out of state students, nothing of the sort was inferred. That's you trying to win this argument.

Yes it is common knowledge that everyone is aware of. You and I are in violent agreement that in state and out of state students use the same facilities and get the same instruction. You're only MAKING the point that your statement "When it comes to subsidies from state taxes, those should go to its state resident students." is stupendously absurd.

When you say subsidies from state taxes should go to its state resident students, you are in fact stating "and not to out of state students." Otherwise, redefine the gibberish you typed?

Again, either explain the asinine statement and defend how this is feasible - to funnel state dollars just to state students (which you and I and the rest of the world knows simply isn't feasible) or admit the sentence was poorly thought out.