NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/gta4/news_6140535.html

I understand helping to build a base for your presidential election, but you've hit me in the heart with this Hillary. No fucking wonder Bill cheated on you.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/gta4/news_6140535.html

I understand helping to build a base for your presidential election, but you've hit me in the heart with this Hillary. No fucking wonder Bill cheated on you.

I know how the Republicans can guarantee a win in 2008 - nominate Hilary.

Don't talk about my woman like that! If she wants to walk into your house and piss all over your X-box, she can!

Games have ratings for a reason. If everyone just winks at it then what is the point? Finally someone wants to put teeth into this and go after merchants who decide to ignore the Mature rating.

Don't talk about my woman like that! If she wants to walk into your house and piss all over your X-box, she can!

hmmm...maybe i should wrap my xbox in a plastic bag...

I know how the Republicans can guarantee a win in 2008 - nominate Hilary.

Agreed, and unfortunately she has a good chance at getting the nomination. The only person that could possibly lose to her is Condi, and even that would be close.

Shes an idiot...Best thing since John Kerry for me and my fellow Republicans

Ahhh I can smell the 08 win alredy....:D

On a side note, Hillary Clinton is the senator of my state, she serves us well!

Ok, I take back ALL the good things I've said about her... I hope to GOD she loses the Democract Presidental Nomination to someone else... Like Oprah!

On a side note, Hillary Clinton is the senator of my state, she serves us well!
And she's serving me 3,000 miles away a big pile of shit.

The Republican Party should be trembling at the prospect of her nomination.

The Republican Party should be trembling at the prospect of her nomination.
She going to the right enough to be a moderate Republican right now, if you haven't noticed.

What if she switches parties, and the Republicans nominate her?

She'll win, you know.

Oh, not again! We're talking about fucking games, Hilary, not handbooks for underage sex and murder!

From what I know of her, I don't mind her, but all this whining arising from something that wasn't even meant to be seen is a right load of old pointless arse.

Typical Clinton. I hope to hell that she doesn't receive a nomination, as it'll mean having to vote Libertarian or Green or something in response (I'd much rather have the Dems appoint someone worth voting for.).

how can she have such a large support base? She's as bad as the right!

She will win either way. Her opponents should be white with fear.

The Republican Party should be trembling at the prospect of her nomination.
Trembling in orgamic joy? Because lets face it, Hillary would collapse in the face of the vast majority of voters who for their own reason veiw her as an "evil ice queen bitch". It's her own fault for daring to have her own political career and not staying in a kitchen like a good wife.*


*Please not sarcasm. It seems to get missed on this forum

It's a reasonable thing to do. If people ignore the regulations then put some sting into them.

Shes an idiot...Best thing since John Kerry for me and my fellow Republicans

Ahhh I can smell the 08 win alredy....:D
There are no solid Republican candidates that have a good probability of running.

Games have ratings for a reason. If everyone just winks at it then what is the point? Finally someone wants to put teeth into this and go after merchants who decide to ignore the Mature rating.

And how exactly will this law be enforced, might I ask? How will you regulate chains, such as Wal-Mart or K-mart? How is this going to stop it, if it in effect does the same exact thing.

All of this Game-enforcement is complete hogwash, apologetic shit, which only takes blame away from those who should be responsible for what goes on in their own home-The Parents. If parents would take the time to monitor their children a bit more, instead of plopping them down in front of the boob tube and leaving them be, this entire issue would be a moot point. In an age where many kids have TVs in their rooms, along with the console of choice, parents are only begging for problems. Parents should keep track of their own kids.

i say she should drop dead and her rotting corpse should be fed to crocodiles

It's this sort of censorship thought police bullshit that keeps me from totally aligning myself with liberals (I'm more of a left-leaning libertarian).

There are no solid Republican candidates that have a good probability of running.

McCain is a man I would be proud to vote for.

Huh. A liberal wanting a republican. Who woulda thunk it?

She going to the right enough to be a moderate Republican right now, if you haven't noticed.

What if she switches parties, and the Republicans nominate her?

She'll win, you know.

No she wont, because none of us righty tightys like her.
And none of you lefty looseys like her.
Like the poster before me said...I wonder where the hell her support comes from....looks north towards the evil Canadians.

Evil Canadian headquarters: ** Evil Canadian: "Mwhahah our plan to insert fake numbers into hillary's support polls is working, mwaahaha, soon we will step out from under the shadow of that evil capitalist country Ameri-gurglsheskjd....**chokes on a strip of Canadian bacon**.

So you would rather be ruled by an idiot than an "ice queen bitch"? She is intelligent, she is driven, she should be president. Damn time the USA has a female president, especially one as powerful as her. I cannot understand your sentimentality in the USA...who cares if she is an ice queen?

PS: Sarcasm was noted, but as this argument is one that is often raised, I would like an answer from anyone who indeed believes she is not worthy of presidency.

And how exactly will this law be enforced, might I ask? How will you regulate chains, such as Wal-Mart or K-mart? How is this going to stop it, if it in effect does the same exact thing.

All of this Game-enforcement is complete hogwash, apologetic shit, which only takes blame away from those who should be responsible for what goes on in their own home-The Parents. If parents would take the time to monitor their children a bit more, instead of plopping them down in front of the boob tube and leaving them be, this entire issue would be a moot point. In an age where many kids have TVs in their rooms, along with the console of choice, parents are only begging for problems. Parents should keep track of their own kids.

Well, I don't think the word "parent" is PC anymore. Kids are allowed to do what they want and parents stopping them is somehow wrong. What the hell? Still if there is going to be a rating system it must be enforced. Even if games like Grand Theft Auto are specificaly made for teenage boys...

Democrats don't like her, Republicans don't like her...who does like her? I'm a liberal, and she's no liberal.

So you would rather be ruled by an idiot than an "ice queen bitch"? She is intelligent, she is driven, she should be president. Damn time the USA has a female president, especially one as powerful as her. I cannot understand your sentimentality in the USA...who cares if she is an ice queen?

Just because she's "powerful and driven" doesn't mean she'd be a good president. She's far too conservative. Her horrible policies lose the support of many democrats, simply because of nonsense like this. There are better choices. Hell, Condi Rice would be better than Hillary Clinton, at least then there won't be any lies about what our president's political party is.

god dammit i play freaking mario and i dont go around hoppin on turtles and expecting little coins to come out! quit messin with video games

It's this sort of censorship thought police bullshit that keeps me from totally aligning myself with liberals (I'm more of a left-leaning libertarian).
No you're not. Well will the moderate conservatives learn, we don't want you. You voted Bush. Go back to the Republicans! ;)

The Republican Party should be trembling at the prospect of her nomination.

Yes, trembling with excitement.

Just because she's "powerful and driven" doesn't mean she'd be a good president. She's far too conservative. Her horrible policies lose the support of many democrats, simply because of nonsense like this. There are better choices. Hell, Condi Rice would be better than Hillary Clinton, at least then there won't be any lies about what our president's political party is.
Many men have overly conservative policies, yet they are still voted in. She should suffer because she is a woman? The democrats are such a hodge-podge of ideologies, I hardly see why it even matters...

Just another example of someone feeling that they know what's best for everyone else. That the rest of us are just too simple to understand the complexities of life and need sheltering.

I'll be honest, I would like to see her in charge of the USA. It might bring me to like the country a little more.

That bitch! Please vote against it other Senators!

If made law, the Family Entertainment Protection Act would be a "a prohibition against any business for selling or renting a Mature, Adults-Only, or Ratings Pending game to a person who is younger than seventeen."

By the way, does that also go for parents buying M or RP games for their 12 year-old son (me)

I know how the Republicans can guarantee a win in 2008 - nominate Hilary.

Seriously. Great strategy by a Democratic hopeful. "Hey, let's anger the male 18-25 voting bloc. They're not one of our hugest supporters."

Democrats don't like her, Republicans don't like her...who does like her? I'm a liberal, and she's no liberal.

As a Republican, who would vote against her if she ran as a Democrat, I would vote for her if she was Republican.

There are many Republicans who hate her who would vote that way.
Plenty of Democrats who would vote for her because she's Hillary.
She would get an extreme amount of power - because her win would be a landslide against any wuss the Democrats would put against her - and I believe the Senate and House would remain Republican.

Would put her in a position she, and the Republicans, would love.

I'll be honest, I would like to see her in charge of the USA. It might bring me to like the country a little more.

I would too. Sure, she's the lesser of two evils, but I can't settle for that sort of choice. I want the best possible person to be president, not simply someone who's "not the worst". That strategy ("Hey, look, I'm not Bush! Vote for me!") didn't work for Kerry because voters didn't see him as a candidate that stood out. I want an outstanding candidate to be up there, not some "ice queen" who's not as bad as the other guy, so let's vote for her.

I also think this reasoning is why the percentage of people who actually vote is at such a low - why bother voting if both the choices suck, just one is less sucky than the other?

Thats one of the only things that pisses me off about my democratic party. They hate video games. Surely with their, anti government intervention on personal life, they would back down from something like this. But oh well..nothing is perfect and we just have to accept this for the time being

Who said she won't make an outstanding leader? Elisabeth I was an ice queen, as was Catherine the Great. Needless to say who they were or what they achieved.

On a side note, Hillary Clinton is the senator of my state, she serves us well!

No she doesn't. She uses it as a springboard for national prominence, nothing more. The only time she rears her ugly head is if there is an issue to criticize Bush. If it is something we need, like federal oversight of the MTA (think disappearing surplus) or airport expansion, she doesn't give a fuck, and would rather not rock the boat.

And she's broken just about every campaign promise she made upstate.

Apart from that she's brilliant.

Oprah for President!

Who else thinks that the most beloved woman in the country would make the Greatest President in our Nation's history!

So why does she want to do this? if she thinks that if she stops kids from buying M games she will lower crime? or... or... thats all I can think up.
Well IF she want to lower crime, why dosen't she create a more strict marrage license so then retards don't have whoopy, and then beat their kids and because of the beatings they think it's ok to hurt people?! *Pant, Pant* run-ons exauste me *Pant*

Why not when the kids are young force them to watch barney and other *shudder* happy tv shows, tell them positive things, then at the age of 18 nail'em with the truth.

(If all of this is ranting sorry, I feel asleep then lost my place while reading it)

Many men have overly conservative policies, yet they are still voted in. She should suffer because she is a woman? The democrats are such a hodge-podge of ideologies, I hardly see why it even matters...

Well I hardly support those men either. It's not an issue of double standards, it's an issue of not supporting people when they're doing something wrong. I wouldn't vote for Jack Thompson for president either, no matter what party he was running for.

Who said she won't make an outstanding leader? Elisabeth I was an ice queen, as was Catherine the Great. Needless to say who they were or what they achieved.

Yes, but Queen Elisabeth I could actually appreciate all the dirty jokes in Shakespeare's plays. I think Senator Clinton would launch a crusade against his plays, were she born in the early 1600s! ;)

No she doesn't. She uses it as a springboard for national prominence, nothing more. The only time she rears her ugly head is if there is an issue to criticize Bush. If it is something we need, like federal oversight of the MTA (think disappearing surplus) or airport expansion, she doesn't give a fuck, and would rather not rock the boat.

And she's broken just about every campaign promise she made upstate.

Apart from that she's brilliant.

She's an opportunist - an unashamedly crafty and shameless self-promoter. Changing her colors to Republican would be just her style.

Nevertheless, she has the brains to do it. I sincerely hope she wins. Angela Merkel took control of Germany, lets hope another superpower is ruled by a female. It is time women got more involved in politics.

Nevertheless, she has the brains to do it. I sincerely hope she wins. Angela Merkel took control of Germany, lets hope another superpower is ruled by a female. It is time women got more involved in politics.

Why?

YAY! Just a minute ago, I was on GamePolitics.com (http://www.gamepolitics.com/), and I found at the top:

"We share Senator Clinton's commitment to effective enforcement of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) ratings by retailers, and we appreciate the fact that she has sought to draft a more thoughtful proposal in this area than most others. However, we strongly oppose the bill. We believe the combination of trustworthy ESRB ratings, parental education, voluntary retail enforcement of ESRB ratings, and, most recently, the major announcement that all next generation video game consoles will include parental control systems, makes Senator Clinton's bill unnecessary... "

Also, As for Calls in 2008, I see for the Democrat Primaries:
John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton,Dick Durbin, Al Sharpton, and Joe Lieberman
(maybe Barrack Obam, that'd be great)

for the republicans, I see Frist, Rudy Guiliani, Alan Keyes,Jeb Bush(possibly) and thats all i know from their party that might run.
Of course alan keyes is like Liberman and sharpton and will be blown away. Several people want Condi to run for the republicans. However, thats not likely. One, She is a woman, and two she is black..won't go over with the very conservative southern republicans..and thats all i gotta say

Why?
Why NOT? They are 54% of the population. They deserve to be better represented in government. I am sick of patriarchy. It must die.

Nevertheless, she has the brains to do it. I sincerely hope she wins. Angela Merkel took control of Germany, lets hope another superpower is ruled by a female. It is time women got more involved in politics.

Is it too much to ask that women running for office be supportable? Why would one vote for a woman simply because she was female? Shouldn't gender not be an issue? Shouldn't what you do and don't do be the issue instead?

Is it too much to ask that women running for office be supportable? Why would one vote for a woman simply because she was female? Shouldn't gender not be an issue? Shouldn't what you do and don't do be the issue instead?
Who is to say she won't be adequate? She is definitely intelligent and shrewd. Hardly an idiot.

What a fad whore. The 'in' thing is to jump on Video games so she jumps on and rants while 'figurativly' sucking off Jack. No wonder Bill was so loose in office , he married her!

Who is to say she won't be adequate? She is definitely intelligent and shrewd. Hardly an idiot.


I said unsupportable, not incompetant. Her politics guarantee that she is unsupportable. The question i asked was why gender should be an issue at all, however. You seem to think the reason she should be elected is that she is a woman. A candidate should not be judged by their gender at all, but rather by their politics. Clinton's are distastefull to most democrats.

Attack a woman's sexual reputation whenever you dislike her actions...how common and idiotic.

Is it too much to ask that women running for office be supportable? Why would one vote for a woman simply because she was female? Shouldn't gender not be an issue? Shouldn't what you do and don't do be the issue instead?
Who is to say she won't be adequate? She is definitely intelligent and shrewd. Hardly an idiot.
Where did you get idiot from the quote?

I said unsupportable, not incompetant. Her politics guarantee that she is unsupportable. The question i asked was why gender should be an issue at all, however. You seem to think the reason she should be elected is that she is a woman. A candidate should not be judged by their gender at all, but rather by their politics. Clinton's are distastefull to most democrats.
I am just concerned that a woman will never come to power in the USA at this rate...usually only men are nominated, and its becoming quite frustrating.

Attack a woman's sexual reputation whenever you dislike her actions...how common and idiotic.
He said "fad whore".

I think you misunderstood the quote.

Nevertheless, she has the brains to do it. I sincerely hope she wins. Angela Merkel took control of Germany, lets hope another superpower is ruled by a female. It is time women got more involved in politics.

Wait, so you would support a woman over a more competent man because she's female?

Is that not the textbook definition of sex discrimination?

Where did you get idiot from the quote?
I meant she is unlikely to mess things up. I entered the term in my statement. Stop nitpicking.

Who is to say she won't be adequate? She is definitely intelligent and shrewd. Hardly an idiot.

I don't deny her brains. She however, does not give a shit about her constituents. I can't imagine she would be any different in the white house.

Hillary Clinton= OMG bAd!!1!1!!11!

I am just concerned that a woman will never come to power in the USA at this rate...usually only men are nominated, and its becoming quite frustrating.

There is indeed sexism in both parties, but the issue goes both ways. Men shouldn't be elected just because they are men and women should not be elected just because they are women. The issue should be their actions and intents, not their gender. Applying sexism in reverse won't make anything any better, which is what supporting women just because they are women is doing. Support the person who's politics you support.

I think Hillary would be a great president. I mean we really I mean REALLY need another sex scandle in the white house, and who better to do it then a Clinton?

There is indeed sexism in both parties, but the issue goes both ways. Men shouldn't be elected just because they are men and women should not be elected just because they are women. The issue should be their actions and intents, not their gender. Applying sexism in reverse won't make anything any better, which is what supporting women just because they are women is doing. Support the person who's politics you support.
Indeed. I agree here. I like Hillary though due to her personality and drive. Her policies may be odd at times, yet on the whole most are acceptable.

I think Hillary would be a great president. I mean we really I mean REALLY need another sex scandle in the white house, and who better to do it then a Clinton?

LMAO.

I meant she is unlikely to mess things up. I entered the term in my statement. Stop nitpicking.
I'm not nitpicking, what I am trying to do is point out that you are distorting/misunderstanding others' posts. Basically accusing them of attacks on Hillary.

Something is getting in the way of your comprehension of people's responses. I could make a guess at what that is, but I wont post it.

Bring back Clinton and the Blowjob in '08!

Perhaps that its late and I am tired? In any case, I am not distorting any posts. I did not insert the words idiotic in the paraphrase.

Bring back Clinton and the Blowjob in '08!
So who is gonna suck her off?

So who is gonna suck her off?
A blind man.

firstly, how did you all get off on this tangent? and now for my actual post

Why NOT? They are 54% of the population. They deserve to be better represented in government. I am sick of patriarchy. It must die.

if they are 54% of the population, then the fact that they do not get elected is no fault of men's.

I agree here. They need to awaken and become more active. Likewise though, some men who would like to see them staying in the dark, should get out of the way. More realistically, its difficult to become involved in politics for a woman due to all the hurdles she must overcome. That is why I admire them all the more when they overcome them.

... Could someone explain why this is a bad thing? Game companies can now make high-ratings games without fear of legal backlash. Parents can't blame video games for their kids' problems if this bill passes; even if there is some correlation behind behaviour and activity, it was either their own negligence or the store's grab for funds that caused the game to fall into their hands.

Exactly. No one seems to want to target the real source of the problem though.

... Could someone explain why this is a bad thing? Game companies can now make high-ratings games without fear of legal backlash. Parents can't blame video games for their kids' problems if this bill passes; even if there is some correlation behind behaviour and activity, it was either their own negligence or the store's grab for funds that caused the game to fall into their hands.

I think people just don't like to be told what to do by the government.

On topic schtuff

Games have ratings for a reason. If everyone just winks at it then what is the point? Finally someone wants to put teeth into this and go after merchants who decide to ignore the Mature rating.

Like they do with movies? Oh...wait, those ratings are voluntary and not legally binding, just like videogame ratings. Hmm...like they do with music? Wait...no, after the congressional hearings made PMRC and Tipper Gore look like fools the best anyone could do was convince the RIAA to make little explicit content warnings.

Fact of the matter is, this is just another disgusting example of busy body regulators deciding to legislate consensual behavior. Behavior that no one has any conclusive proof is even danagerous. They just don't like it so they want to do something about it. Its for the children. And don't forget to vote in 2008. Shit like this is why I fly the Gadsden flag.

It's a reasonable thing to do. If people ignore the regulations then put some sting into them.

GAR! THEY AREN'T REGULATIONS!!!!! The ESRB rating system is a voluntary system created and adopted by the major videogame distributors.

And how exactly will this law be enforced, might I ask? How will you regulate chains, such as Wal-Mart or K-mart? How is this going to stop it, if it in effect does the same exact thing. .

Sting operations that end with 16 year old clerks making $6.25 and hour being charged with a federal offense.

... Could someone explain why this is a bad thing? Game companies can now make high-ratings games without fear of legal backlash. Parents can't blame video games for their kids' problems if this bill passes; even if there is some correlation behind behaviour and activity, it was either their own negligence or the store's grab for funds that caused the game to fall into their hands.

Because stores can't be held accountable. All a law like this will do is punish minimum wage workers who aren't being paid enough to be anal about carding. Aside from that, its blatantly unconstitutional.

Off topic political schtuff

She will win either way. Her opponents should be white with fear.

I think you're underestimating the visceral hate alot of conservatives feel for her. In the eyes of the hard right, shes even worse than her husband. For the democrats, shes a mediocre candidate, for the Republicans shes a base mobilizer. Republicans who couldn't be bothered to care will come out just to vote against her. While they're there, the'll toos their votes for senators, governors, and all the rest.


There are no solid Republican candidates that have a good probability of running.

What do you call John McCain? Also, theres been noises from Powell ever since he walked from the Bush Administration. If either of them ran, the dems would be in trouble. Though I hope McCain doesn't, I don;t trust him much more than Hillary.

, I would like an answer from anyone who indeed believes she is not worthy of presidency.

She is a populist. That alone disqualifies her in my eyes. Beyond that, she has only been personally politically active for one Senate term and she has bent whichever way the wind has blown. She has shown little personal initiative during her short tenure on any issue of substance. Beyond that, she does not have any of the requisite experiance I look for in a president. She has no direct executive experiance, either political or corporate. Hillary's biggest selling point seems to be how much of a hand she played in Bill's presidency, and I didn't like him much either (just a lefty Dubya as far as I'm concerned). I dislike her politics, I have seen no evidence that she is a strong leader, and she has no real experiance to speak of.

Beyond that, speaking strategically, she won't play outside of the cities. Sure, she'll have New York, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Seatle, L.A., all that wrapped up, but she won't win a single rural area, not as a big government populist. Even Dubya had to hide that until he had a war to justify every retarded program he wanted to push.

It is time women got more involved in politics.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that anyone lacking a penis is a good candidate. You push a bad candidate, they need to get voted down. Hillary is a bad candidate. So is Condi. Me, I nominate Cathy Young, not that she could ever win, she doesn't care about the children. Or the will of the masses. Just the constitution.

Who is she? Good to see that you are open minded about female participation at least btw.

I think people just don't like to be told what to do by the government.

Ya think maybe? Read the Bill of rights some time, it enumerates 27 specific things that the government cannot do and opens the door for a near infinate number of others. The rest of the constitution consists mainly of narrowly outlining government powers so as to allow it to do as little as possable. The Declaration of Independence is pretty much a list of things the government told citizens to do that they didn't like....

Ya think maybe? Read the Bill of rights some time, it enumerates 27 specific things that the government cannot do and opens the door for a near infinate number of others. The rest of the constitution consists mainly of narrowly outlining government powers so as to allow it to do as little as possable. The Declaration of Independence is pretty much a list of things the government told citizens to do that they didn't like....

No I don't I think the government should dictate what we do and when we can do it. I just said that in a retorical manner without believing what I was saying. :rolleyes:

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/gta4/news_6140535.html

. No fucking wonder Bill cheated on you.

Im sure its not because she is butt ugly. Bill only married her for the political connections....

Who is she? Good to see that you are open minded about female participation at least btw.

She is a contributing editor at Reason Magazine (the big Libertarian mag). Shes basically a left libertarian, big on civil liberties, ok on fiscal issues. Her blog is here: http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/ and a list of her recent articles in Reason can be found online here: http://www.reason.com/cy/young.shtml

No, she isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea, and no she isn't actually running (sadly), but she is a good example of what I look for politically in a candidate, male or female.

Hopefully a good female candidate will arise at some point. I'd still like to see how Hillary would handle a presidency.

Games have ratings for a reason. If everyone just winks at it then what is the point? Finally someone wants to put teeth into this and go after merchants who decide to ignore the Mature rating.

What about the parents who go buy this game for their kids? Are THEY going to be fined?

How about the morons who take a three year old into an R-rated action flick and inflict the poor kid's crying on us after s/he's scared by explosions and such?

If Hilary wanted to empower parents, there would be NO REASON for this law -- because this law takes the responsibility out of the parents' hands, doesn't it?

What about the parents who go buy this game for their kids? Are THEY going to be fined?

How about the morons who take a three year old into an R-rated action flick and inflict the poor kid's crying on us after s/he's scared by explosions and such?

If Hilary wanted to empower parents, there would be NO REASON for this law -- because this law takes the responsibility out of the parents' hands, doesn't it?
She doesn't want to empower parents. It takes a village remember? Obviously a parent can't be trusted to raise their child alone.

She doesn't want to empower parents. It takes a village remember? Obviously a parent can't be trusted to raise their child alone.


And I quote the queen hypocrite from Colodia's link....

"A majority of parents are feeling increasingly victimized by a culture of violence that makes it difficult to protect their children against influences they find to be inappropriate," read Clinton's statement. "This bill would help empower parents by putting them back in the driver's seat. It would ensure that children can't buy games the video game industry itself has determined to be inappropriate for them."

Yup. Taking the responsibility away from parents to monitor their kids' behavior and belongings and putting it in the government's hands is EMPOWERING PARENTS BY PUTTING THEM BACK IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT.

Does no one else see the logical problem with that statement?

Shes an idiot...Best thing since John Kerry for me and my fellow Republicans

Ahhh I can smell the 08 win alredy....:D
Yeah and I can smell the moral decay and death of our nation as we know because of Republicans. You guys voted BUsh in and look what he has done. Retards. Thank God I'm moving to Europe.

Yup. Taking the responsibility away from parents to monitor their kids' behavior and belongings and putting it in the government's hands is EMPOWERING PARENTS BY PUTTING THEM BACK IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT.

Does no one else see the logical problem with that statement?
Of course not. Hillary Clinton, like all politicians, yearns to be everybody's abusive mommy and daddy.
"Why do you make me strip away your freedoms?"

Yeah and I can smell the moral decay and death of our nation as we know because of Republicans. You guys voted BUsh in and look what he has done. Retards. Thank God I'm moving to Europe.

Thank god there's one less hippie at least.

Hillary Clinton seriously needs to have her balls chopped off.

In a synopsis of the whole thing, it really is just a bad idea in general, and should be dropped.

Because she is a woman she should not be voted for? You must operate on merely a couple of brain cells...:rolleyes: I hate making ad hominem attacks, but you are a first class idiot. Oh well, if she wins maybe you'll die from shock, doing us all a favour :)

PS: Woman, women (pl.)...learn to spell ;)

Because she is a woman she should not be voted for? You must operate on merely a couple of brain cells...:rolleyes: I hate making ad hominem attacks, but you are a first class idiot. Oh well, if she wins maybe you'll die from shock, doing us all a favour :)

PS: Woman, women (pl.)...learn to spell ;)

Please, don't feed the trolls. First post, dumb name, "QED, Bitch"...yep, troll. I only like my trolls in music. *Goes back to listening to Fintroll*

Sorry, yet this one deserved to be fed something poisonous.

Sorry, yet this one deserved to be fed something poisonous.

Acknowledging their existence just gives the impression that they're worth responding to. Not every opinion deserves a counterpoint, not every voice deserves to be heard.

Sigh, I suppose you are right...a waste of energy to do anything but ignore them in the end. :)

I nearly had an anuryism while reading this.

Its spellt aneurism I think.

And how exactly will this law be enforced, might I ask? How will you regulate chains, such as Wal-Mart or K-mart? How is this going to stop it, if it in effect does the same exact thing.

All of this Game-enforcement is complete hogwash, apologetic shit, which only takes blame away from those who should be responsible for what goes on in their own home-The Parents. If parents would take the time to monitor their children a bit more, instead of plopping them down in front of the boob tube and leaving them be, this entire issue would be a moot point. In an age where many kids have TVs in their rooms, along with the console of choice, parents are only begging for problems. Parents should keep track of their own kids.

wow!!!! common sense....holy crap,people actually responsible for their children and their own behaviour...the horror.
lets have nanny gov do everything for us..including raising our children.

oh,and i am a moderate borderline libertarian for these reasons exactly.

hillary,postergirl for the left,or hitlery for the right...fact is she is a politician and a chameleon by definition.
i suspect she is trying to position herself as a moderate to appeal to dissaffected repubs,and will morph back to her liberal paymasters if elected.

i would not vote her in as a dogcatcher,or give her a job as a sanitation engineer.

i would show her the same door i would show bush if givin the chance.:sniper:

Hillary is like most politicians-a manipulative, phony,self serving liar. She has just gotten away with more than most others.
Imagine-she comes from Arkansas after being the wife of the govenor there- a govenor who somehow became president even though Arkansas had the lowest education test scores in the nation and the highest poverty rate.
She is the first lady with her nose in everything.
Then, she dons a Yankee baseball hat and declares herself a New Yorker. Bill is grinning in Harlem saying he feels like hes home again.

Most people are aware of the litany of foul play and disgraceful behavior attached to hillary. But it doesnt seem to matter. I'm glad I dont live in New York any more.
I wouldnt vote for her for President.

So you would rather be ruled by an idiot than an "ice queen bitch"? She is intelligent, she is driven, she should be president. Damn time the USA has a female president, especially one as powerful as her. I cannot understand your sentimentality in the USA...who cares if she is an ice queen?

PS: Sarcasm was noted, but as this argument is one that is often raised, I would like an answer from anyone who indeed believes she is not worthy of presidency.

driven to be succesfull or elected at any cost is not an admirable trait in my book.
i feel she is a liar..why..i have no idea,i just despise her.
i could care less if she was a manhating/ice queen/superbitch..i have an inate feeling she is dihonest and as evil as bush2,just a different flavor of evil.

plus she's antigun..big no-no to me

Fair enough. At least you are not one of many americans I have met before who believe that her being a woman is her biggest drawback. :rolleyes: We will have to wait and see what happens then, there is no better way of knowing the future than letting it come to us.

Hillary will not be the democratic nomine. I can assure you of that.

Hillary Clinton likes little boys

Come on guys, lets spread it like wildfire.

Piekrom']Hillary will not be the democratic nomine. I can assure you of that.

But will she attempt to get the nomination? I think she will. She's going after too much Hollywood money just for what is effectively a gimmee state senate election.

Thats one of the only things that pisses me off about my democratic party. They hate video games. Surely with their, anti government intervention on personal life, they would back down from something like this. But oh well..nothing is perfect and we just have to accept this for the time being

i'm confused?

do you think the democrats are anti gov. intervention in personal issues?

hell,thats the one reason i would even vote repub.if any party is for individual rights,out of the 2,it surely is not the dem's...they are all about regulating every aspect of our daily lives(excluding the stupid war on drugs..yet they remain mute on that as well)
if any party is against individual rights versus societies rights,it's the dem's...they know better then everyone on the gun issue,the parenting issue,i live in a democratically controlled state,and i must say it is stifling and a borderline police state.
they seem to have this attitude they know better then anyone what is best for me and mine,maybe well intentioned,but wrong..and good luck getting them to admit they are wrong.
i maybe an anachronism,but i believe in small government,defense/safety net for the poor/trade/foriegn policy...not preemptive nannies telling me how to live or behave..if i hurt someone or violate someones rights or well being..then punish me..but not premptively.
dem's have this adicction to a huge omnipresent government that will somehow be a utopian paradise for us lowly no nothings...and that turned me away back in reagans day,now ironically...the republicans are marching down the same path...so i say no to both...
no nanny state....please
i can decide what my kids watch,i don't need no stinkin holier then thou telling me whats good for me or my family,as i would never presume to tell you what is right for you..complicated idea..hardly.

Is it too much to ask that women running for office be supportable? Why would one vote for a woman simply because she was female? Shouldn't gender not be an issue? Shouldn't what you do and don't do be the issue instead?

i agree,i would vote for a female in a n.y. minute..if she was honest and held dear the things i do..as it stands...noone does...boo
they are(and hillary especially..oppurtunists at best)so as it stands..i would rather vote in the town drunk then any of the socalled intelligent driven people they are force feeding us.

hell,i would devote my life to elect my mom..open minded and honest(alas she is dead)or some of the mom's in my neighborhood that scared the crap out of me when i did wrong.

And I quote the queen hypocrite from Colodia's link....



Yup. Taking the responsibility away from parents to monitor their kids' behavior and belongings and putting it in the government's hands is EMPOWERING PARENTS BY PUTTING THEM BACK IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT.

Does no one else see the logical problem with that statement?
i like your thinking..alot

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/gta4/news_6140535.html

I understand helping to build a base for your presidential election, but you've hit me in the heart with this Hillary. No fucking wonder Bill cheated on you.

Well, you certainly shown by your post that she is wrong about the maturity of video game players. :rolleyes:

I haven't read all of the posts yet but they seem to revolve mostly around Clintons gender and her viabilaty as a candidate. Gender does not matter, man or woman most politicians are dicks and bitches respectively; they all suck. As for her chances at winning the presidency they are small. Her support is entirely the far left, conservatives hate her, most moderates hate her. This has nothing to do with gender it has everything to do with her being very, very liberal.

The video game thing is one reason that all poloticians suck. Every time a polotician wants to cuddle up with the family values crowd to further their career they pull this shit. Trying to legislate morality. The ESRB ratings are ment as PARENTAL guidlines. If a parent does not want little timmy to play an adult themed video game then he/she SHOULD BE A PARENT do the research and DON"T BUY THE GAME FOR LITTLE TIMMY. GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT EVEN HAVE TO GET INVLOLVED IN THE PROCESS.

What? Why? stupid hillary. :mp5:

Well, you certainly shown by your post that she is wrong about the maturity of video game players. :rolleyes:
Well it's quite difficult to act respectful to someone who relates video games to tobacco and alcohol.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/gta4/news_6140535.html

I understand helping to build a base for your presidential election, but you've hit me in the heart with this Hillary. No fucking wonder Bill cheated on you.

Oh, bwahahahahahahahahaha, heeheeheeheehee, hohohohohohoho. *wiping away tears of joy and gratitude* So, who's the party that's for personal freedoms now? Obviously isn't the democrats. Somewhere right now 'ol Dolla Bill is busy hiding his copy of Leisure Suit Larry from Hillary.

Sometimes, life is soooo sweet!

Don't worry, I doubt it'll pass.

i'm confused?

do you think the democrats are anti gov. intervention in personal issues?

hell,thats the one reason i would even vote repub.if any party is for individual rights,out of the 2,it surely is not the dem's...they are all about regulating every aspect of our daily lives(excluding the stupid war on drugs..yet they remain mute on that as well)
if any party is against individual rights versus societies rights,it's the dem's...they know better then everyone on the gun issue,the parenting issue,i live in a democratically controlled state,and i must say it is stifling and a borderline police state.
they seem to have this attitude they know better then anyone what is best for me and mine,maybe well intentioned,but wrong..and good luck getting them to admit they are wrong.
i maybe an anachronism,but i believe in small government,defense/safety net for the poor/trade/foriegn policy...not preemptive nannies telling me how to live or behave..if i hurt someone or violate someones rights or well being..then punish me..but not premptively.
dem's have this adicction to a huge omnipresent government that will somehow be a utopian paradise for us lowly no nothings...and that turned me away back in reagans day,now ironically...the republicans are marching down the same path...so i say no to both...
no nanny state....please
i can decide what my kids watch,i don't need no stinkin holier then thou telling me whats good for me or my family,as i would never presume to tell you what is right for you..complicated idea..hardly.

Here here!

The democrats (liberals) tout themselves as the ones who will protect your freedoms from the evil republicans, while the republicans shout their calls of small government, and both lie. Lies!

The way I see it. She is playing to the religous right. Than when she gets elected president she is going screw the religous right and do her own liberal thing. Forbiddin Knowledge is a stupid conscept. No one needs protection from any sights or sounds. The idea that some picture or some word is harmful to be seen or heard is just plain dumb.

"Hear no evil see no evil speak no evil" = superstition

Here here!

The democrats (liberals) tout themselves as the ones who will protect your freedoms from the evil republicans, while the republicans shout their calls of small government, and both lie. Lies!

how obvious a truth...yet so stupidly ignored by the masses.

they are all whores...yet everyone is so knee jerk...dem or repuglican...the liberals hate repugs so much they just vote for the tooth fairy,and the opposite votes for bush...how quaint and yet stupid...my self included...screwe em all i say...sorry...screw em all...vote libertarian or anachry...please accept my deepest apology for the foul language.
:confused:

Hillary Clinton likes little boys

Come on guys, lets spread it like wildfire.
lol :p The she-predator.

Here are some numbers from the ESA (http://www.theesa.com/facts/games_youth_violence.php) (Entertainment Software Association):

Parents are involved in the purchase or rental of games 83 percent of the time, according to a September 2000 FTC report, and industry research in the shows that 90 percent of games are actually purchased by adults over 18. In other words, in an overwhelming majority of instances, parents are ultimately making the decisions about what games their kids acquire.

It's simply not the case that there are millions of teenagers that buy M-rated games without parent's knowledge.

This bill singles out video games among other media like movies based on unproven potential harm.

It takes responsibility away from parents and shifts it to minimum wage workers at wal-mart.

The ESA will sue against this bill anyway, and it will most likely be trashed by the supreme court (like all other video game bills), so why waste taxpayers money?

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/gta4/news_6140535.html

I understand helping to build a base for your presidential election, but you've hit me in the heart with this Hillary. No fucking wonder Bill cheated on you.

I don't see the problem, to be honest.

Games with mature content, designed for players of a certain age, SHOULDN'T be available to people below that age range...

We have two choices:

1) Make ALL games suitable for ALL players... thanks, but no thanks.

or:

2) Make games suitable for set age ranges (like we do with films), and regulate their availability.

It works the same as film does... if the parents of a 15 year old feel he/she is okay with mature theme games, THEY can buy them, the same as if they think the same son/daughter is okay with mature theme films.

*snip*

2) Make games suitable for set age ranges (like we do with films), and regulate their availability.

It works the same as film does... if the parents of a 15 year old feel he/she is okay with mature theme games, THEY can buy them, the same as if they think the same son/daughter is okay with mature theme films.

It's not the same as with movies. There is no law that makes the cashier or the owner of a movie theater accountable for kids who watch a movie that has a higher rating than the kids' age.

Games are singled out again.

Also, don't forget that both the movie ratings as the ESRB ratings are voluntary rating systems. If the state legislates those ratings system, they are not longer voluntary und thus unconstitutional.

im tired one last rant before i go to sleep

pssh... where i live I buy half life 2 i show ID saying im over 16,same thing when i went to see the movie doom. Its not a big deal just be quiet and hand over some ID for games with mature content..I'm not sure how closely the government follows things here(with some things here such as alcohol you get asked for ID unless you look older than 25 as a general rule so they seem to take these things seriously). Theres a better rating system here too with GTA SA being rated R18 right off the mark so I guess thats why there is not OMG WTFMATE?? BAN GAMES type kneejerk reactions when something bad happens or a game thats deemed bad is banned outright. There a quite a couple of games like that over there but came here with R18 or some other rating yet they seem to be weird about ratings over there, actually i found out the game "manhunt" is banned here....err im rambling a bit

sorry about the rant its 3am here so in summary

There should be an independent ratings system in the US like the one here. more info on how it works here http://www.censorship.govt.nz/
ok im tired now zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz oh and hillary clinton is just fearmongering,

It's not the same as with movies. There is no law that makes the cashier or the owner of a movie theater accountable for kids who watch a movie that has a higher rating than the kids' age.

Games are singled out again.

Also, don't forget that both the movie ratings as the ESRB ratings are voluntary rating systems. If the state legislates those ratings system, they are not longer voluntary und thus unconstitutional.

I don't see the problem, to be honest. I say they should legislate age restrictions.

After all, one COULD argue that not allowing child-brides is unconstitutional... and yet we see that 'children' and adults are granted DIFFERENT freedoms/protections by the Constitution.

Should a fifteen year old have a 'constitutional' claim to watching pornographic material?

I don't see the problem, to be honest. I say they should legislate age restrictions.

After all, one COULD argue that not allowing child-brides is unconstitutional... and yet we see that 'children' and adults are granted DIFFERENT freedoms/protections by the Constitution.

Should a fifteen year old have a 'constitutional' claim to watching pornographic material?

I'm not that familiar with the US constitution in detail, so can't comment on the child bride issue, but I guess the US government has the right to protect it's citizen in case of harm. But as far as I know the Freedom of Speech article is very narrow in the allowed execeptions.

So far, all efforts of video game legislation have been thrown out by the supreme court. You'd probably have to change the constitution to allow such laws.

But then is there a reason to it? As I posted earlier, there really isn't a problem with teens running around and buying M-rated games. 83% of all teenagers buying or renting games or doing so in the presence of parents.

I don't have any objections against teens watching porn. Why? Because there's no proof that it does any harm (http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/chunter/porn_effects.html#conclusion).

But then is there a reason to it? As I posted earlier, there really isn't a problem with teens running around and buying M-rated games. 83% of all teenagers buying or renting games or doing so in the presence of parents.


That kind of IS the point, though.

The legislation Clinton is talking about, would prevent teens from renting/buying 'mature content'. However, if their parent/parents is/are there, there are two OTHER factors at work: 1) It can be seen that the parents in question CONDONE the activity, and 2) effectively the parents are the safeguard... monitoring the behaviour of their offspring.

Legally, the parents would buy/rent the material, effectively.

This means that the game companies don't have to worry so much about parents writing scads of letters of complaint about the material their children are playing.

It puts the responsibility on the parent, where it SHOULD be.

83% of all transactions are taking place in the presence of parents? Then, it must be the OTHER 17% of parents/parent-child relationships... that are causing the outcry.


I don't have any objections against teens watching porn. Why? Because there's no proof that it does any harm (http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/chunter/porn_effects.html#conclusion).

I do not want my daughter watching pornography. She is far too young. I want the decision of when she IS old enough, to be up to her parents (mainly, her mom). So - I support the local videostores NOT renting adult material to teens.

That kind of IS the point, though.

The legislation Clinton is talking about, would prevent teens from renting/buying 'mature content'. However, if their parent/parents is/are there, there are two OTHER factors at work: 1) It can be seen that the parents in question CONDONE the activity, and 2) effectively the parents are the safeguard... monitoring the behaviour of their offspring.

Legally, the parents would buy/rent the material, effectively.

This means that the game companies don't have to worry so much about parents writing scads of letters of complaint about the material their children are playing.

It puts the responsibility on the parent, where it SHOULD be.

It would place the responsibilty on some wal mart guy. The teens who want to get hold of GTA, will do so regardless of any laws. Ever heard of p2p? Also, laws that prevent teens from buying booze work so great, eh?

If you support a change of the constitution that restricts freedom of speech for a law that will have little to no effect, then go ahead.

83% of all transactions are taking place in the presence of parents? Then, it must be the OTHER 17% of parents/parent-child relationships... that are causing the outcry.

No, the outcry is caused by parents who buy GTA for their 12 year olds and then realize what kind of game it is. The parents are the real problem, not the guy at wal mart.

Many parents simply do not seem care about ratings or what their children are playing. This law will not change this.

Parents need to get involved with what their children are playing and teach them what they think is appropriate for them. That's called "parenting".

Relying on (unconstitutional) laws, that most probably aren't going to work anyway, isn't.

I do not want my daughter watching pornography. She is far too young. I want the decision of when she IS old enough, to be up to her parents (mainly, her mom). So - I support the local videostores NOT renting adult material to teens.

Then teach your daughter not to. Simple as that.

The way I see it. She is playing to the religous right. Than when she gets elected president she is going screw the religous right and do her own liberal thing. Forbiddin Knowledge is a stupid conscept. No one needs protection from any sights or sounds. The idea that some picture or some word is harmful to be seen or heard is just plain dumb.

"Hear no evil see no evil speak no evil" = superstition


I wish she was playing to the religious right, but if they were the only people receptive to such a message, she wouldn't be doing it. No, shes playing to the center, that big block of middle class voters who are pure statists, fically liberal, socially conservative. Thats what progressive politics is all about, giving the people what they want regardless of the consequences.

I don't see the problem, to be honest.

Games with mature content, designed for players of a certain age, SHOULDN'T be available to people below that age range...

We have two choices:

1) Make ALL games suitable for ALL players... thanks, but no thanks.

or:

2) Make games suitable for set age ranges (like we do with films), and regulate their availability.

It works the same as film does... if the parents of a 15 year old feel he/she is okay with mature theme games, THEY can buy them, the same as if they think the same son/daughter is okay with mature theme films.


Damnit, we don't do it with movies! The MPAA gives something a rating, it gets shown. If a theater shows an R rated film to a minor, it isn't a crime. The SOLE enforcement of the MPAA ratings scheme is that studios threatent to stop selling movies to theaters that continually violate the rules. Big theater chains (Crown, AMC, Lowes, etc) support the ratings system as a PR move. Don't believe me?

The Aristocrats. Showed in pleanty of major theaters up to a few months ago and was NEVER EVEN SUBMITTED FOR AN MPAA RATING. See, the ratings are even voluntary. Even for a movie about a joke that involves literally anything you could be offended by (up to and including a description of incestuous sex with a bullet wound). No rating.

I wish she was playing to the religious right, but if they were the only people receptive to such a message, she wouldn't be doing it. No, shes playing to the center, that big block of middle class voters who are pure statists, fically liberal, socially conservative. Thats what progressive politics is all about, giving the people what they want regardless of the consequences.

I love how she took a giant step towards Lieberman's view on Israel, after she ran for Senator in New York. Cozied up to the largest Jewish groups.

Prior to that, she was a champion for the Palestinian cause.

She's not "progressive". She's a shameless self-promoter who is willing to dispense with anything she personally believes in so she can get elected.

Reminds me of Grace Slick. Who sang anything just to sell records.

It would place the responsibilty on some wal mart guy.


Not at all. It would place the responsibility on the game producer first, then the distributor... the enforcers of local law... the parents who decide whether to go with their children to the store, etc.

At NO point does this idea give ANY authority to the Wal-Mart operator to 'decide' anything. He/she just has a responsibility to ENSURE that the policy is followed.

The responsibility for the product purchase, would be with the parents, who buy the game for their teen.... or the player of the game, themselves, if they are OLD ENOUGH to buy the product.


The teens who want to get hold of GTA, will do so regardless of any laws.


Which does NOT mean that the law SHOULD be 'do as thou wilt'.


Ever heard of p2p?


Entirely different argument. Different arena. Different set of control problems. Trading copyrighted material over p2p without permission is ALREADY illegal.

Strawman.


Also, laws that prevent teens from buying booze work so great, eh?


Another Strawman. ANd yet, it can be argued that teens have LESS access to alchohol, than they would without ANY restriction... so it does SOME good... even though it is irrelevent to THIS topic.


If you support a change of the constitution that restricts freedom of speech for a law that will have little to no effect, then go ahead.


Strawman... yet another. Where did I say I approved of amending the constitution? Where did I say I wanted to restrict free speech?

Preventing children from seeing pornography is NOT interfering with free speech... the pornographer can keep right on trucking. Setting an age restriction on movies/games does NOT interfere with the free speech of the game producer... and there is no constitutional protection to 'free viewing'.

(Certainly not for children).


No, the outcry is caused by parents who buy GTA for their 12 year olds and then realize what kind of game it is. The parents are the real problem, not the guy at wal mart.

Many parents simply do not seem care about ratings or what their children are playing. This law will not change this.


Two different arguments, again. The parents who bring home GTA and are shocked by content, DO care about ratings. They don't think THEIR children should be able to have access to mature media, of that fashion.

Some parents will complain that their children BOUGHT such a product... Clinton's idea deals with THAT.

Some parents will claim they didn't KNOW what sort of game their children bought, or they bought FOR their children. Concrete rules about age-related suitability labelling will address THAT.

After all - if Clinton's will be done, and products are CLEARLY labelled for content and suitability... and age restrictions are SUPPOSED to be enforced... parents can't go bitching and whining when they buy their children something inappropriate DESPITE those protocols.


Parents need to get involved with what their children are playing and teach them what they think is appropriate for them. That's called "parenting".


And not enough do it. But, THAT isn't the issue.


Relying on (unconstitutional) laws, that most probably aren't going to work anyway, isn't.


I don't see any constitution infringment. What constitutional infringement are you discussing?

And, of course, whether the policy would work or not, remains to be seen.


Then teach your daughter not to. Simple as that.

Don't patronise me. One assumes that, if you have some experience of the real world, you know that nothing is EVER safely described as 'simple as that'.

All of this Game-enforcement is complete hogwash, apologetic shit, which only takes blame away from those who should be responsible for what goes on in their own home-The Parents. If parents would take the time to monitor their children a bit more, instead of plopping them down in front of the boob tube and leaving them be, this entire issue would be a moot point. In an age where many kids have TVs in their rooms, along with the console of choice, parents are only begging for problems. Parents should keep track of their own kids.

Actually, many of us do keep track of our own kids but when kids go to friend's houses we no longer have control. It's a problem that not selling to kids would help solve. As far as chain stores, I read the proposal in the initial message and chains would be as responsible for making sure kids don't buy Mature games as all other stores. You do have a point though that more parents need to say "NO" to these games in their own homes.

I don't see the problem, to be honest. I say they should legislate age restrictions.

After all, one COULD argue that not allowing child-brides is unconstitutional... and yet we see that 'children' and adults are granted DIFFERENT freedoms/protections by the Constitution.

Should a fifteen year old have a 'constitutional' claim to watching pornographic material?


Not really a valid argument there. The constitutional claim doesn't stem from the consumer, but the producer. A ratings system acts as a prior restraint on the speech of the producer and is likely to have a chilling effect, thus it is unconstitutional. Further, there are only three valid ways for the government to prove the constitutionality of their system. They must prove that either the games
a) are obscene. This would allow banning, but getting something declared obscene is VERY difficult.
b) constitute incitement to violence or insurrection. Again, not going to happen.
c) pose such a threat that the government has a compelling interest in restricting their use. Not likely, considering that the only classes of materials currently treated as such are pornography and things relationg to national security.

Further, even if the government could present such proof, the ratings system would still fall if a majority of the supreme court did not believe that the system was the "least restrictive possible" option. Once all of those hurdles have been jumped, its just a matter of time until the ratings scheme gets stricken down because some court realizes that games, like books/music/movies/paintings/and sometimes even conduct, constitute speech. When that happens, the ratings system goes down again.

I love how she took a giant step towards Lieberman's view on Israel, after she ran for Senator in New York. Cozied up to the largest Jewish groups.

Prior to that, she was a champion for the Palestinian cause.

She's not "progressive". She's a shameless self-promoter who is willing to dispense with anything she personally believes in so she can get elected.

Reminds me of Grace Slick. Who sang anything just to sell records.


Bingo! She made good friends in Monroe,NY-Kyras Joel and Muncie-two of the most corrupted places in NY, where voters dead and alive vote more than once.

Damnit, we don't do it with movies! The MPAA gives something a rating, it gets shown. If a theater shows an R rated film to a minor, it isn't a crime. The SOLE enforcement of the MPAA ratings scheme is that studios threatent to stop selling movies to theaters that continually violate the rules. Big theater chains (Crown, AMC, Lowes, etc) support the ratings system as a PR move. Don't believe me?

The Aristocrats. Showed in pleanty of major theaters up to a few months ago and was NEVER EVEN SUBMITTED FOR AN MPAA RATING. See, the ratings are even voluntary. Even for a movie about a joke that involves literally anything you could be offended by (up to and including a description of incestuous sex with a bullet wound). No rating.

Sorry - but this just isn't true. The oft touted Wal-mart as an example, will not sell certain media below the restricted age range on it... and we aren't even talking pornography.

You are JUST focusing on movie theatres, where there is NO parallel at all... after all, movie theatres don't 'show' games.

And, if you'd responded to the POINT of my post... you would have been addressing the issue that movies and games ARE made with a specific audience IN MIND, and are made suitable for THAT AUDIENCE. We do that with films, and they get certificated on that basis... sometimes, to our detriment... like when a foreign film is ONLY available in a 'US version', for example... just so it can pass the certification grade it is set for.

I don't see any reason why movies and games should NOT be made in this way... the 'artist' still has freedom to create his vision... he just has to pamper the audience who he wants to charge for the pleasure.

Not really a valid argument there. The constitutional claim doesn't stem from the consumer, but the producer. A ratings system acts as a prior restraint on the speech of the producer and is likely to have a chilling effect, thus it is unconstitutional.
I disagree.

If a producer f movies WANTS his movie to be family friendly, for the family market, then it is in that persons interests to ENSURE that their product is family friendly.

Regulation of labeling doesn't affect that in a negative fashion, it just makes the AUDIENCE aware of what they are buying... which is accepted as a given in pretty much every OTHER product we pay for.

Indeed... regulation of certification can HELP the producer. If the producer wants a family friendly movie, but some other agent is pushing for a mature concept to be involved, the producer can simply point to the regulation as a reason why NOT to include such material.

As I've already stated (in another reply), the argument that restricting the sale of games/movies to those for whom they are suitable... is somehow infringing on free-speech, is hogwash.

The artist still has control over his/her vision. But, he/she MUST tailor their vision to the audience for which it is intended.... or else accept that their market will be limited to those who still CHOSE to witness their vision ONCE THEY ARE AWARE of the content.

Not at all. It would place the responsibility on the game producer first, then the distributor... the enforcers of local law... the parents who decide whether to go with their children to the store, etc.

At NO point does this idea give ANY authority to the Wal-Mart operator to 'decide' anything. He/she just has a responsibility to ENSURE that the policy is followed.

Where does the law say anything about responsibility of game developers?

It clearly says, that wal mart employes are to be held responsible for selling m-rated games to minors.

Entirely different argument. Different arena. Different set of control problems. Trading copyrighted material over p2p without permission is ALREADY illegal.

Strawman.

Another Strawman. ANd yet, it can be argued that teens have LESS access to alchohol, than they would without ANY restriction... so it does SOME good... even though it is irrelevent to THIS topic.

Yes, teens have less ACCESS to alcohol, not less alcohol. Remember the prohibition? Didn't work out either.

We have very harsh laws in Germany regarding video games. Games get banned and publishers self-censor games. Doesn't help a bit.

If a law that places restrictions on someone, and the outcome is likely to be minimal - and experience from other countries and the past show that they hardly work - then one might argue that the law is disproportional (unsure about the exact legal term here) and ineffective. Especially if the laws singles out one form of speech and does not adress others.

Strawman... yet another. Where did I say I approved of amending the constitution? Where did I say I wanted to restrict free speech?

Preventing children from seeing pornography is NOT interfering with free speech... the pornographer can keep right on trucking. Setting an age restriction on movies/games does NOT interfere with the free speech of the game producer... and there is no constitutional protection to 'free viewing'.

(Certainly not for children).



I'm unsure about your laws, but in Germany free speech is right to "produce" free speech as well as to listen to it. But that's about it - German free speech laws are full of holes. :(



Two different arguments, again. The parents who bring home GTA and are shocked by content, DO care about ratings. They don't think THEIR children should be able to have access to mature media, of that fashion.

Some parents will complain that their children BOUGHT such a product... Clinton's idea deals with THAT.

Some parents will claim they didn't KNOW what sort of game their children bought, or they bought FOR their children. Concrete rules about age-related suitability labelling will address THAT.

After all - if Clinton's will be done, and products are CLEARLY labelled for content and suitability... and age restrictions are SUPPOSED to be enforced... parents can't go bitching and whining when they buy their children something inappropriate DESPITE those protocols.



You have some points here. I'll have to think about that.



I don't see any constitution infringment. What constitutional infringement are you discussing?

So far (as mentioned above several times), all laws restricting the sale of video games to minors have been declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. This one will most likely have the same fate.

I propose something completely different:

Encourage the IEMA (Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association) and the VSDA (Video Software Dealers Association) to set up a system to fine merchants who sell those games to minors. Just like parts of the movie theater industry do.

Sorry, don't have the time to adress all your points fully.

Ugh, what a bitch. If people want to play certain video games, whose business is it but theirs? If you don't like certain video games, don't play them. If you don't want your kids playing certain video games, don't let them play them. Otherwise, leave everyone else the fuck alone.

Ugh, what a bitch. If people want to play certain video games, whose business is it but theirs? If you don't like certain video games, don't play them. If you don't want your kids playing certain video games, don't let them play them. Otherwise, leave everyone else the fuck alone.

Agreed, the industry has done a good enough job with their own self-regulation, but ultimately it should be up to the parents to decide what their children can and cannot do.

Liberals don't want conservatives dictating morals in their bedroom, we don't want liberals dictating morals in our living rooms (or where ever you play video games)

Although I don't think that a kid's mind will be permanently rotten and twisted if he or she happens to glance at an M rated game or sees a boob on TV, I think it's important for parents to know what kind of content is in these games. Stores should be required to deny the sale to a minor because they can't be sure they have parental approval for such a game.

On the other hand, parents should also be aware that a rating is just a rough estimate, and not a clear-cut, works-for-everything, absolutely-correct, classification and it's up to them to make a decision regarding their particular kid and the particular game.

McCain is a man I would be proud to vote for.
Huh. A liberal wanting a republican. Who woulda thunk it?
Liberals liking McCain is exactly why I wouldn't vote for him. He's totally Manchurian.

OTOH, if the Dems wised up, ignored the Move-On/Moore wing, and ran Liberman, they would actually have a chance to get some of the "middle Ground" votes.

But then, nominating a Jew would be too NeoCon, wouldn't it... :rolleyes:

I love how she took a giant step towards Lieberman's view on Israel, after she ran for Senator in New York. Cozied up to the largest Jewish groups.

Prior to that, she was a champion for the Palestinian cause.

She's not "progressive". She's a shameless self-promoter who is willing to dispense with anything she personally believes in so she can get elected.

Reminds me of Grace Slick. Who sang anything just to sell records.

Sorry, slight misunderstanding. That post was written ebfore I'd finished my first cup of coffee. Replace progressive with populist.

Games have ratings for a reason. If everyone just winks at it then what is the point? Finally someone wants to put teeth into this and go after merchants who decide to ignore the Mature rating.


those ratings were at first to be guidlines for parents, its the parents responisbilty to control their children.

besides, arnt democrats, liberals, supposed to be all for freedom of speech and expressions? as in no censorship

Not at all. It would place the responsibility on the game producer first, then the distributor... the enforcers of local law... the parents who decide whether to go with their children to the store, etc.

At NO point does this idea give ANY authority to the Wal-Mart operator to 'decide' anything. He/she just has a responsibility to ENSURE that the policy is followed.

All well and good, but that doesn't change the fact that the ONLY person who can be prosecuted in a ratings scheme is a minimum wage earning gatekeeper. Where is the victory there? At best a law like this would have the capacity to punish only someone who isn't paying enough attention as a cashier.

Which does NOT mean that the law SHOULD be 'do as thou wilt'.

I disagree my friend. "Do as thou Wilt shall be the whole of the law." That phrase (and it's extrapolations) is at the heart of both my personal conduct and my political thinking. Also, if you're going to quote that particular piece, capitalize the w in Wilt. It isn't a typo.

93
93/93


an aside: I'm neither interested in nor willing to engage in a discussion about the merits of the Law of Thelma. I refer you to Liber Al Vel Legis if you're interested in it, particularily the editorial note at the end if you wonder why I refuse a discussion.

Sorry - but this just isn't true. The oft touted Wal-mart as an example, will not sell certain media below the restricted age range on it... and we aren't even talking pornography.

You are JUST focusing on movie theatres, where there is NO parallel at all... after all, movie theatres don't 'show' games.

And, if you'd responded to the POINT of my post... you would have been addressing the issue that movies and games ARE made with a specific audience IN MIND, and are made suitable for THAT AUDIENCE. We do that with films, and they get certificated on that basis... sometimes, to our detriment... like when a foreign film is ONLY available in a 'US version', for example... just so it can pass the certification grade it is set for.

I don't see any reason why movies and games should NOT be made in this way... the 'artist' still has freedom to create his vision... he just has to pamper the audience who he wants to charge for the pleasure.


Fine, lets look at Wal-Mart. Do they refuse to sell because of legislation? No, they do it because it is their right as a buisness to dictate what they will sell, to whom, and for how much. I have no problem letting a buisness decide what they want to sell. What I have a problem with is a politician trying to route their way around a free market determination of standards so they can make a little hay with the soccer mom demographic.

While I agree that movies and games are made with specific audiances in mind, thats kinda of a non-issue when were discussion constitutional freedoms. You, as a consumer or parents, have NO right to determine content beyond what you choose to purchase or watch. All of the rights are held by the producer, as well they should be.

If you dislike or disapprove of content, it falls on you to either not buy the product or walk away from it. A retail store can make those same choices (as Wal-Mart does), but they are not required to. Further, in our economy, "US Releases" are really a thing of the past. I can go to any number of stores, both physically or online, and purchase edits from all over the world. Then all I have to do is take them home and drop them in my DVD player. Even DVD regioning (which, again, is something the industry does, not Washington), the one thing that prevented you from being able to watch those films released in other countries, has become a non-issue with the proliferation of cheap multi-region DVD players.

It is all a mmot point, however. In the end, these kinds of actions and enforcements (ratings) have ALWAYS been the purview of the buisness. I take offense to the government deciding to step in.

I disagree.

If a producer f movies WANTS his movie to be family friendly, for the family market, then it is in that persons interests to ENSURE that their product is family friendly.

Regulation of labeling doesn't affect that in a negative fashion, it just makes the AUDIENCE aware of what they are buying... which is accepted as a given in pretty much every OTHER product we pay for.

Indeed... regulation of certification can HELP the producer. If the producer wants a family friendly movie, but some other agent is pushing for a mature concept to be involved, the producer can simply point to the regulation as a reason why NOT to include such material.

As I've already stated (in another reply), the argument that restricting the sale of games/movies to those for whom they are suitable... is somehow infringing on free-speech, is hogwash.

The artist still has control over his/her vision. But, he/she MUST tailor their vision to the audience for which it is intended.... or else accept that their market will be limited to those who still CHOSE to witness their vision ONCE THEY ARE AWARE of the content.


Read carefully. When I'm talking about things being unconstitutional, I am CLEARLY talking about what the GOVERNMENT is allowed to do. Thats what the constitution deals with, GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. A buisness can put all the pressure on an artist they choose and its fine. The government exerts one iota of pressure and it is not. If a buisness wants to enact a ratings scheme, they can. If the government wants to, they can't. Why? Because our founders weren't winking when they wrote "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble." There is no "unless kids might see blood or boobies" caveat. It isn't negotiable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint

Right there in the first paragraph, the part about requiring a lisence to speak. What happens if a game producer decides to speak (publish their game) without submitting it for a rating? What happens if he refuses to accept the rating? What happens if he speaks to a group he has not been granted permition to speak to?

You precious children are not worth the rape of the constitution. Shit like this is why I fly the Gadsden Flag.

Liberals don't want conservatives dictating morals in their bedroom, we don't want liberals dictating morals in our living rooms (or where ever you play video games)

If I could somehow play Grand Theft Auto, while performing an act of sodomy and burning a flag...that'd be the trifecta!

If I could somehow play Grand Theft Auto, while performing an act of sodomy and burning a flag...that'd be the trifecta!

ROFLMAO

Read carefully. When I'm talking about things being unconstitutional, I am CLEARLY talking about what the GOVERNMENT is allowed to do. Thats what the constitution deals with, GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. A buisness can put all the pressure on an artist they choose and its fine. The government exerts one iota of pressure and it is not. If a buisness wants to enact a ratings scheme, they can. If the government wants to, they can't. Why? Because our founders weren't winking when they wrote "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech; or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble." There is no "unless kids might see blood or boobies" caveat. It isn't negotiable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint

Right there in the first paragraph, the part about requiring a lisence to speak. What happens if a game producer decides to speak (publish their game) without submitting it for a rating? What happens if he refuses to accept the rating? What happens if he speaks to a group he has not been granted permition to speak to?

You precious children are not worth the rape of the constitution. Shit like this is why I fly the Gadsden Flag.
Constitutions can be changed if circumstances so warrant.

Constitutions can be changed if circumstances so warrant.

I'm pretty sure that attempting to change the first ammendment is the old thing that would drive this country to embrace the second ammendment the way Jefferson intended.

Honestly, I hope you aren't actually suggesting such a thing. The protections of the first ammendment are the underpinning of not only our society, but the concept of a free society in general. Abridging freedom of conscience, association, and the press is the kind of behavior that would only appeal to a tyrant. There is never a legitimate reason to infringe upon these rights, there is never a circumstance that warrants it.

Despite what everyone here thinks there is only one thing.

Video Games are a form of media.

Media is covered as Free Speech. If it's okay to stop video games and censor them then it is unconstutional. Period.

Video Games= Media

Media= Free Speech

Censoring Free Speech= Unconstitutional

Censoring Video Games= Unconstitutional

In order to Censor video games they would have to remove Media under the protection of Free speech.
(Which would include Movie's TVs, Newspapers, Books and any other form of non verbal Free Speech also.)

I was merely stating that Constitutions are hardly incapable of being changed :p

Constitutions can be changed if circumstances so warrant.
I was merely stating that Constitutions are hardly incapable of being changed :p

That part will never be changed, because as soon as it changes the country will shatter. What world are you from?

Since that part of the Constitution can't be changed then like I said nothing can 'legally' happen.

Despite what everyone here thinks there is only one thing.

Video Games are a form of media.

Media is covered as Free Speech. If it's okay to stop video games and censor them then it is unconstutional. Period.

Video Games= Media

Media= Free Speech

Censoring Free Speech= Unconstitutional

Censoring Video Games= Unconstitutional

In order to Censor video games they would have to remove Media under the protection of Free speech.
(Which would include Movie's TVs, Newspapers, Books and any other form of non verbal Free Speech also.)

Its a general comment, not specific to any part of the Constitution.

I'm not American btw.

I was merely stating that Constitutions are hardly incapable of being changed :p


I should hope so, the very concept makes me physically ill, and thankful for the amount of time I spend at the range.

So the presidential line will go Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.

America is a nation of three hundred people. Isn't there one other competent person who isn't from those two families.

And here I thought Americans revolted because they didn't want a king.

As for the rating system, I give an overwhelming meh. Kids will get "R" rated games anyway. No amount of regulation is going to stop them. End of story.

Now i'm not one of these idiots who think computer games/films/rap music make pschopaths, it seems obvious that people messed up enough to kill others etc have not been raised "right" I have played vioent games watched violent films listened to ganster rap and smoked cannabis for many years now, but i had proper parents (parents over 20 that is, with an education of sorts) and thus, i'm yet to kill or mame for fun. It would probably make a lot of sense for these imbeciles to spend their time investigating the effects of bad parenting on childrens activities later in life. Or perhaps to complain about the fact that you lot can buy guns!!! I mean c'mon for fuck sake, sell guns and wonder why people kill each other in your country?!
However, licencing laws are there for a reason, and if you're gonna do something, do it right. I wish the UK would become more strict on things like this. Then, perhaps, I wouldn't have to keep seeing articles like My 10 year old kid played GTA San Andreas, nicked my car and killed six innocent people!
Oh, and as for your choice of leaders, does it really matter? theyre all just a face to you, no? I mean Arnie a governor?!!! And then you complain that politicians tell lies? HES AN ACTOR (admittedly not a good one) ACTORS MAKE A CAREERS FROM PRETENDING, THATS WHAT ACTING IS!!!

ACTORS MAKE A CAREERS FROM PRETENDING, THATS WHAT ACTING IS!!!


so do politicians, you dont actually think politicians mean what they say, do you?

politicians need your vote, they say what it takes to get your vote.