[OFFICIAL] Hillary Clinton running for 2008 President!

[Xeno]

Awe shit we're all fucked if she makes it =\

I'm all for the point of view saying 'fuck the rest of the world, lets better ourselves'. I'm personally tired of seeing my tax money feeding future terrorists and drug runners, I'd much rather be feeding/clothing the homeless within our own borders... but FUCK, I don't want it from HER.

Only way to pull this one out is if Mayor Rudy runs

I will move to Canada if she gets elected, no lie.

I dont think you know that much about Canada to be making that statement. The canadian gov't is way more left wing than she will ever be, so if your running up north to escape liberal leaders being elected your just trading one form of liberalism for another.

I'd moreso be running to Canada to get outta the US, less to escape democrats, more to escape an inevitable inside country nuclear blast lol, democrats wanna be everyones friends,watching the local news stations show images of the blast radius of what would happen if the local nuclear power plant got hit would do kinda freaks me out is all lol, and Canada seems to have less enemys that the US lol >.>; I'm just thinking for myself, hence me saying 'imo' >.> I'm a greedy, selfish bastard

[Plow]

Too bad any arguments about video game violence being bad are totally retarded when the fact that teen violence is lower than it has ever been.

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/9...jchart13vm.gif

( Source: http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/myturn/?id=10787 which uses http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html for their numbers.)

Hilary would like you to believe that video games make kid more violent and offers evidence that insults my intelligence.

Recent research has confirmed links between exposure to violent video games and aggressive behavior in children and a groundbreaking new study by researchers at Indiana University School of Medicine show that playing violent video games triggers unusual brain activity among aggressive adolescents with disruptive behavior disorders. Senator Clinton noted that this is just the latest piece of evidence that confirms the potentially damaging impact of these games on children. Senator Clinton also noted that the current, industry enforced system is not yet working as it should and is not acting as a deterrent to kids accessing inappropriate video games, underscoring the need for today’s action.

(Source: http://www.clinton.senate.gov/news/stat ... d=240603&& )

Oh.. so kids who are already aggressive and have disruptive behavior disorders have "unusual" brain activity when playing violent video games. I bet they have "unusual" brain activity when watching the sound of music too.

Hilary's position totally flies in the face of everything people who grew up in this generation experienced. Some will call them murder simulators but I will call it a healthy outlet.

Ok first off. I started out a little skeptical of the article claiming violence is down, because any fool that knows about the last 50 years of American life would scoff at such a statement. So I read a little ways down. I kinda don't think you read the article. If you had, I doubt you'd try to make a serious argument based on an article that starts off with this:

I'm not sure I have the ability to write a totally serious piece - it is not in my nature to be serious, nor the nature of GR - but the issues are very serious indeed and the evidence is very real.

I tried to read through more of the article, but a lot of the things it said didn't seem very... right... and I couldn't find any of the stuff they referenced when I looked at the actual government site.

Not to mention the whole thing where kids "being violent" is not listed in the "violent crime rates." Nor have we fully seen the results of the GTA-era children growing up.

Further, I should point out that you made it sound like Clinton came up with this, and it was a big point of hers or something. Again, read even the part you quoted, it said

Senator Clinton noted that this is just the latest piece of evidence that confirms the potentially damaging impact of these games on children.

Guess what... strange brains acting stranger does exactly that: confirms the potential for damaging impact. Have you ever considered that the feeling you get from running over random people in GTA may be the same feeling Dahmer got from eating people in real life? May in fact be the same exact chemical process? You certainly can't say it is, as I don't think many serial killers are going to let you scan their brains as they take out their next victim. However, it sure seems like if you wanted to emulate the feeling a criminal got as they were committing a crime, the best way would be to have a person emulate committing a crime.


Lastly, you can call it a healthy outlet all you want-- and if you want your kids to have access, you should control and allow that. If you don't want your kid to have access, however, you shouldn't have to go to absurd lengths to curb it.

I personally don't think I'll be showing my kids how to fuck hookers and kill them to avoid paying, then go run random people over and commit completely insane crimes, all with full high definition graphic... graphics, at a very young age. At least, as long as I don't have to worry that they can get extremely easy access to it anytime I'm not directly watching them, that is.

[archibaldcrane]

Are there really 14 year olds posting here worried that Big Bad Hilary Clinton is going to make retailers enforce video game ratings guidelines, preventing them from getting the next M-rated game they want?

I didn't think the BG demographic skewed quite that young.

[Plow]

Are there really 14 year olds posting here worried that Big Bad Hilary Clinton is going to make retailers enforce video game ratings guidelines, preventing them from getting the next M-rated game they want?

I didn't think the BG demographic skewed quite that young.

It didn't. Then all the NA ps2 players hit 75.

[Devek]

Ok first off. I started out a little skeptical of the article claiming violence is down, because any fool that knows about the last 50 years of American life would scoff at such a statement.

You mean like violence you see reported on television?

So I read a little ways down. I kinda don't think you read the article. If you had, I doubt you'd try to make a serious argument based on an article that starts off with this:

I'm not sure I have the ability to write a totally serious piece - it is not in my nature to be serious, nor the nature of GR - but the issues are very serious indeed and the evidence is very real.

He doesn't normally write serious pieces but this time he did.

I tried to read through more of the article, but a lot of the things it said didn't seem very... right... and I couldn't find any of the stuff they referenced when I looked at the actual government site.

Not to mention the whole thing where kids "being violent" is not listed in the "violent crime rates." Nor have we fully seen the results of the GTA-era children growing up.

You didn't look very hard.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm

Is the actual graph he modified to include information about when GTA was released and the playstation.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm

Is the raw data that you can see yourself.

Further, I should point out that you made it sound like Clinton came up with this, and it was a big point of hers or something.

It is the main piece of evidence offered on her official site.

Again, read even the part you quoted, it said

Senator Clinton noted that this is just the latest piece of evidence that confirms the potentially damaging impact of these games on children.

Guess what... strange brains acting stranger does exactly that: confirms the potential for damaging impact. Have you ever considered that the feeling you get from running over random people in GTA may be the same feeling Dahmer got from eating people in real life? May in fact be the same exact chemical process?

Maybe the same feeling people get after watching a football game? Violent riots after games get reported on the news.

You certainly can't say it is, as I don't think many serial killers are going to let you scan their brains as they take out their next victim.

Violent offenders are studied and profiled extensively. My wife made a lot of stupid accusations in my divorce and I went through a fully battery of tests to disprove a few of them. Comparing my psychological profile to that of violent offenders gave me a indicator score of 3.. 50 being normal and 100 being high.

I'm a perfect example of a person raised on this shit yet I have absolutely nothing in common with a serial killer and I can prove it.

However, it sure seems like if you wanted to emulate the feeling a criminal got as they were committing a crime, the best way would be to have a person emulate committing a crime.

The best way would be to hurt someone.. and guess what? When I beat a hooker in GTA no one actually gets hurt, its just fun.

Lastly, you can call it a healthy outlet all you want-- and if you want your kids to have access, you should control and allow that. If you don't want your kid to have access, however, you shouldn't have to go to absurd lengths to curb it.

Just like parents stop their kids from drinking, smoking, and doing drugs?

I personally don't think I'll be showing my kids how to fuck hookers and kill them to avoid paying, then go run random people over and commit completely insane crimes, all with full high definition graphic... graphics, at a very young age. At least, as long as I don't have to worry that they can get extremely easy access to it anytime I'm not directly watching them, that is.

What age kids are you talking about? 4-8 year olds don't usually go to the mall by themselves and have money to buy GTA games.

If you're talking about not letting your 12-14 year old kids play GTA that is your choice but other kids are going to make fun of your kids and thats going to do wonders for their self-esteem and do more harm than the game will

[Metah]

Canada had a woman prime minister once.

She was in for about 2 months.

If this was posted already, sorry, this topic is long ass.

[Devek]

Canada had a woman prime minister once.

She was in for about 2 months.

If this was posted already, sorry, this topic is long ass.

Lol, what happened?

[Metah]

Canada had a woman prime minister once.

She was in for about 2 months.

If this was posted already, sorry, this topic is long ass.

Lol, what happened?

It happened when I was around 4 years old so I'm not exactly sure on the finer details...

Appearently she started off really popular, but then dipped down when the people said she couldn't relate to the common person. Also her policies were similar to those of the (much disliked) former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. She also used an ad campaign that attacked her opposition's facial paralysis (this was John Cretien).

It's funny, since after she was taken out, John Cretien became the prime minister for the next 10 years.

[Plow]

Ok first off. I started out a little skeptical of the article claiming violence is down, because any fool that knows about the last 50 years of American life would scoff at such a statement.

You mean like violence you see reported on television?

Or the violence I lived in the middle of when I watched my neighbors fall into meth addiction and become absolutely fucking insane right in front of me, and the millions in ghettos that you never see or hear shit about and could never imagine yourself?

So I read a little ways down. I kinda don't think you read the article. If you had, I doubt you'd try to make a serious argument based on an article that starts off with this:

I'm not sure I have the ability to write a totally serious piece - it is not in my nature to be serious, nor the nature of GR - but the issues are very serious indeed and the evidence is very real.

He doesn't normally write serious pieces but this time he did.

He doesn't write serious pieces, and is not able to. The piece you are referring to was far from a serious informative essay.

I tried to read through more of the article, but a lot of the things it said didn't seem very... right... and I couldn't find any of the stuff they referenced when I looked at the actual government site.

Not to mention the whole thing where kids "being violent" is not listed in the "violent crime rates." Nor have we fully seen the results of the GTA-era children growing up.

You didn't look very hard.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm

Is the actual graph he modified to include information about when GTA was released and the playstation.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm

Is the raw data that you can see yourself.

Ok I'm looking at that graph and it doesn't make much sense. It claims that arrests for violent crimes have more than doubles, while actual crimes reported and actual crimes commited have fallen to less than half. How on earth could someone make that projection?

Directly below the graph it states:

The National Crime Victimization Survey redesign was implemented in 1993; the area with the lighter shading is before the redesign and the darker area after the redesign.

Interesting how the specific trend used to claim what you wanted happens on a graph at pretty much the exact moment the methods for making the graph change.

Further, I should point out that you made it sound like Clinton came up with this, and it was a big point of hers or something.

It is the main piece of evidence offered on her official site.

What? Where is this "the main piece of evidence offered" for anything? In the quote you made sure to separate from this, it specifically states she said it was "just the latest piece of evidence." Like... right here:

Again, read even the part you quoted, it said

Senator Clinton noted that this is just the latest piece of evidence that confirms the potentially damaging impact of these games on children.

Guess what... strange brains acting stranger does exactly that: confirms the potential for damaging impact. Have you ever considered that the feeling you get from running over random people in GTA may be the same feeling Dahmer got from eating people in real life? May in fact be the same exact chemical process?

Maybe the same feeling people get after watching a football game? Violent riots after games get reported on the news.

What? The mental processes for pretending to murder and watching football are a little different.

You certainly can't say it is, as I don't think many serial killers are going to let you scan their brains as they take out their next victim.

Violent offenders are studied and profiled extensively. My wife made a lot of stupid accusations in my divorce and I went through a fully battery of tests to disprove a few of them. Comparing my psychological profile to that of violent offenders gave me a indicator score of 3.. 50 being normal and 100 being high.

I'm a perfect example of a person raised on this shit yet I have absolutely nothing in common with a serial killer and I can prove it.

If you were raised on the more recent GTA's, that makes you what, under 25? And you've already been divorced? Model of what I want my kids to be lemme tell ya.

However, it sure seems like if you wanted to emulate the feeling a criminal got as they were committing a crime, the best way would be to have a person emulate committing a crime.

The best way would be to hurt someone.. and guess what? When I beat a hooker in GTA no one actually gets hurt, its just fun.

Because there's nothing in psychological study that prevents you from intentionally hurting people for the purpose of testing.

Guess what? The average 8-13 year old doesn't have the understanding of life, humanity, and empathy, to fully grasp the differences between running over some video game guy for the fun of it and smacking their sister in the face for the fun of it.

Lastly, you can call it a healthy outlet all you want-- and if you want your kids to have access, you should control and allow that. If you don't want your kid to have access, however, you shouldn't have to go to absurd lengths to curb it.

Just like parents stop their kids from drinking, smoking, and doing drugs?

So there should be no controls whatsoever over alcohol, tobacco, and all drugs? They should just be freely available to the kid buying GTA from the used game store at the used needle store next door? And not only that but packaged and designed to appeal to children and advertised through children's mediums?

And not only that, but you honestly want to compare GTA with your "healthy release" reference, to drinking, smoking, and doing drugs?

I personally don't think I'll be showing my kids how to fuck hookers and kill them to avoid paying, then go run random people over and commit completely insane crimes, all with full high definition graphic... graphics, at a very young age. At least, as long as I don't have to worry that they can get extremely easy access to it anytime I'm not directly watching them, that is.

What age kids are you talking about? 4-8 year olds don't usually go to the mall by themselves and have money to buy GTA games.

If you're talking about not letting your 12-14 year old kids play GTA that is your choice but other kids are going to make fun of your kids and thats going to do wonders for their self-esteem and do more harm than the game will

If kids will make fun of my kid because I won't let him play the fuck and murder hookers game, there's something wrong with America dammit. And fuck you and your kids for being that thing.

[Mysterio]

Canada had a woman prime minister once.

She was in for about 2 months.

If this was posted already, sorry, this topic is long ass.

Lol, what happened?

It happened when I was around 4 years old so I'm not exactly sure on the finer details...

Appearently she started off really popular, but then dipped down when the people said she couldn't relate to the common person. Also her policies were similar to those of the (much disliked) former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. She also used an ad campaign that attacked her opposition's facial paralysis (this was John Cretien).

It's funny, since after she was taken out, John Cretien became the prime minister for the next 10 years.

Kim Campbell was in office from June 25th, to November 4th of 1993 lol.

Was a joke, granted she ran a good campaign, but she also got alot of votes stemming simply fromt he fact she was a woman.

Needless to say it didn't last. Had problems "relating" to average canadians like you said, and she didn't favour improving the unemployment rate.

[Metah]

Canada had a woman prime minister once.

She was in for about 2 months.

If this was posted already, sorry, this topic is long ass.

Lol, what happened?

It happened when I was around 4 years old so I'm not exactly sure on the finer details...

Appearently she started off really popular, but then dipped down when the people said she couldn't relate to the common person. Also her policies were similar to those of the (much disliked) former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. She also used an ad campaign that attacked her opposition's facial paralysis (this was John Cretien).

It's funny, since after she was taken out, John Cretien became the prime minister for the next 10 years.

Kim Campbell was in office from June 25th, to November 4th of 1993 lol.

Was a joke, granted she ran a good campaign, but she also got alot of votes stemming simply fromt he fact she was a woman.

Needless to say it didn't last. Had problems "relating" to average canadians like you said, and she didn't favour improving the unemployment rate.

OK, so 4 months. That's still pretty lame.

[Devek]

You mean like violence you see reported on television?

Or the violence I lived in the middle of when I watched my neighbors fall into meth addiction and become absolutely fucking insane right in front of me, and the millions in ghettos that you never see or hear shit about and could never imagine yourself?

Is that caused by..

A) Drugs
B) Poverty
C) Video games
D) Something else?

Or are you saying that video games causes people to do drugs and become poor? Or are you saying there is an increase of crime because of drugs? Poverty hasn't changed much though I'm too lazy at 1:21am to look up those facts.

If drugs cause people to commit violent crimes and drug use is on the rise and video games are not responsible for drugs than we need to factor out the violence caused by drugs which would mean that for normal non-drug addicted people violence is even lower than the graph shows.

Should I mention that the moral of the story of GTA:SA(that prompted Hilary to write her bill) was that drugs were bad?

He doesn't normally write serious pieces but this time he did.

He doesn't write serious pieces, and is not able to. The piece you are referring to was far from a serious informative essay.

He doesn't NORMALLY write serious pieces and he wasn't sure if he makes good serious articles however the issue is serious and the facts are real. He states that. He never says the article isn't serious and the article is serious. Read it again.

I'm not being 100% serious either and just having fun here(by that nature that I never take anything that seriously when just talking) but does that mean that I am wrong or lying?

I hate to make a strawman(again) but are you saying that he isn't qualified to write that pieces? Are you a more qualified serious article writer than this guy and how so?

You didn't look very hard.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm

Is the actual graph he modified to include information about when GTA was released and the playstation.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm

Is the raw data that you can see yourself.

Ok I'm looking at that graph and it doesn't make much sense. It claims that arrests for violent crimes have more than doubles, while actual crimes reported and actual crimes commited have fallen to less than half. How on earth could someone make that projection?

Directly below the graph it states:

The National Crime Victimization Survey redesign was implemented in 1993; the area with the lighter shading is before the redesign and the darker area after the redesign.

Interesting how the specific trend used to claim what you wanted happens on a graph at pretty much the exact moment the methods for making the graph change.

If that graph doesn't make sense that isn't my problem. Their data collection is very scientific and they include their methodology along with their other charts used for each year. You also make assumptions about how the redesign would effect the numbers. They already know the answer to that.

The data before 1993 are adjusted to make them comparable with data collected since the redesign. The adjustment methods are described in Criminal Victimization 1973-95. Estimates for 1993 and beyond are based on collection year while earlier estimates are based on data year. For additional information about the methods used, see Criminal Victimization 2005.

Statistics are very complicated and beyond the scope of anything here but there is a lot of validity to what these numbers say. They are not 100% correct and they don't claim to be and different methods of going about this come with different names.. yet the site says right in your face that CRIME IS DOWN.

The measures of serious violent crime come from two sources of data:

* The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), a household survey ongoing since 1972, that interviews about 134,000 persons age 12 and older in 77,200 households each year about their victimizations from crime.
* The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) that collects information on crimes and arrests reported by law enforcement authorities to the FBI.

Although each measure is different, both the NCVS and the UCR show that serious violent crime levels declined in recent years. For a discussion of UCR and NCVS trends that uses these data, see "True Crime Stories? Accounting for Differences in our National Crime Indicators" from Chance by BJS staff members, Michael R. Rand and Callie Marie Rennison.

If you think you're more qualified to say if crime is down or not than these people who are highly educated and qualified to say so than you can go ahead and knock yourself out but you will be wrong.

It is the main piece of evidence offered on her official site.

What? Where is this "the main piece of evidence offered" for anything? In the quote you made sure to separate from this, it specifically states she said it was "just the latest piece of evidence." Like... right here:

Great.. so where is all the other "evidence" she is using on her site to support her case?

Maybe the same feeling people get after watching a football game? Violent riots after games get reported on the news.

What? The mental processes for pretending to murder and watching football are a little different.

Are they? You already said:

Have you ever considered that the feeling you get from running over random people in GTA may be the same feeling Dahmer got from eating people in real life? May in fact be the same exact chemical process? You certainly can't say it is

Have you ever considered that the feeling you get from watching a football game may be the same feeling "Dahmer" got from eating people in real life? May in fact be the same exact chemical process? You certainly can't say that it is.

I hate to throw that back at you.. but i'm going to add more to the punch by simply listing one event.

http://info.detnews.com/history/story/i ... ory=sports

On March 17, 1955, thousands of crazed hockey fans in the Montreal Forum went on a seven-hour rampage of destruction and looting that ended in many injuries and the arrest of 100 fans. In later years, the free-for-all euphemistically became known as "The Richard Riot." The other team on the ice happened to be the Detroit Red Wings.

The fans whipped up a fury of anger against one of the spectators at the game between the Montreal Canadiens and the Detroit Red Wings -- National Hockey League president Clarence Campbell. The crowds demonstrated their displeasure over his decision to suspend Maurice "Rocket" Richard, l'enfant terrible of the Montreal Canadiens.

Richard, one of the most prolific scorers in hockey, had a reputation as the most hot-tempered player on the Flying Frenchmen team. Always a high scorer, the Rocket was a shoe-in to win the scoring title of the NHL that year.

During an earlier game in Boston on March 13, Hal Laycoe high-sticked Richard, giving him a nasty scalp cut which later required eight stitches to close. The Rocket exploded in rage, swinging his stick like a baseball bat, smashing it over Laycoe's head and shoulders. He yanked another stick from a player and slashed at Laycoe until the stick splintered. Then he turned on Cliff Thompson, one of the officials, and let lose with a right to the face. Player fights are a part of hockey culture

There ya go.. 100 arrests after watching a single hockey game. Good luck finding 100 arrests after someone played a video game.. and if you do I can simply list more and more riots after a sporting event until you give up and admit defeat.

Violent offenders are studied and profiled extensively. My wife made a lot of stupid accusations in my divorce and I went through a fully battery of tests to disprove a few of them. Comparing my psychological profile to that of violent offenders gave me a indicator score of 3.. 50 being normal and 100 being high.

I'm a perfect example of a person raised on this shit yet I have absolutely nothing in common with a serial killer and I can prove it.

If you were raised on the more recent GTA's, that makes you what, under 25? And you've already been divorced? Model of what I want my kids to be lemme tell ya.

Wolfenstein was released when I was 12 and you could go on BBSs and download maps that included pornography and you there were many many various scenarios that we played from being homer simpson and killing his boss to running through levels and shooting naked women.

When I was 8 we played a game called TiM where we would make incredibly elaborate systems to blow up this poor cat..

I could go on and on about my violent video game history but thats moot.

Around that same age I think I even put a few ants under a microscope to watch them burn to a crisp and even pulled the legs off a few bugs to watch them die.

I'm 26 now btw and I'm not going to answer personal attacks.

The best way would be to hurt someone.. and guess what? When I beat a hooker in GTA no one actually gets hurt, its just fun.

Because there's nothing in psychological study that prevents you from intentionally hurting people for the purpose of testing.

I don't understand what you are saying? I supposed I could intentionally hurt someone if I had to.

Guess what? The average 8-13 year old doesn't have the understanding of life, humanity, and empathy, to fully grasp the differences between running over some video game guy for the fun of it and smacking their sister in the face for the fun of it.

8-10 is different than 10-12 and is different than 12-14 etc. Our escape from self-centered neurosis starts from birth. I'm not really an expert here and would have to consult with an actual psychologist about what causes one to move out and have empathy for others or what causes that to stunt it.

There obviously is a point where a kid stops hitting their sister because they don't want to get in trouble(or hit back) and stop hitting her because he/she doesn't want to hurt her.

I have never advocated small children (under 8-10) playing these games but there isn't much of a danger of 6 year old johnny driving to the store and picking up a copy of GTA.

The biggest danger of small children playing games isn't the violence so much as the gravity of the situation these games put them in. I could imagine a child finding stuff in FFXI like a Behemoth KS99 to be very traumatic and it is well known and documented that trauma is very bad in a child's development of any kind.

I think around 12 or so I wouldn't mind sitting down with my daughter and playing a few violent video games. I would love the opportunity to discuss such topics as life, death, and crime in a fun environment with her. I think thats much better than throwing her out in the world to fend for herself.

Just like parents stop their kids from drinking, smoking, and doing drugs?

So there should be no controls whatsoever over alcohol, tobacco, and all drugs? They should just be freely available to the kid buying GTA from the used game store at the used needle store next door? And not only that but packaged and designed to appeal to children and advertised through children's mediums?

And not only that, but you honestly want to compare GTA with your "healthy release" reference, to drinking, smoking, and doing drugs?

It isn't that the controls for drugs/alcohol/cigarettes shouldn't exist so much as how they don't stop kids from getting their hands on this stuff anyway. These things are proven to be harmful for anyone (even adults) and as such the government tries hard to restrict them from minors. Hilary wants to make video games just as regulated as cigarettes.

I. Prohibition on Selling Mature and Adults Only video games to minors
II. Annual Analysis of the Ratings System
III. Authority for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to Investigate Misleading Ratings
IV. Authority to Register Complaints
V. Annual Retailer Audit

I've never seen GTA:SA advertised on Nick or Cartoon network and in fact I think my 7 year old has never mentioned it nor have I seen it in any of the material she has brought home with her from school. I still read Nintendo's mags occasional which is targeted at her age range and no violent games are mentioned there either.

However, once a child is teenage years they ARE going to be exposed to these type of games and from many different angels especially from their friends.

What age kids are you talking about? 4-8 year olds don't usually go to the mall by themselves and have money to buy GTA games.

If you're talking about not letting your 12-14 year old kids play GTA that is your choice but other kids are going to make fun of your kids and thats going to do wonders for their self-esteem and do more harm than the game will

If kids will make fun of my kid because I won't let him play the fuck and murder hookers game, there's something wrong with America dammit. And fuck you and your kids for being that thing.

Maybe there is something wrong with America.

Lets sign a bill into law that makes it illegal for kids to tease and make fun of each other. Kids have teased and made fun of each other for hundreds possibly thousands of years and the results of that are well documented too. If you want your kid to be a victim of that and made fun of I suggest you read some of the mental impacts this is going to have on them.

Anyway, bed time for now. I'll check back in in the morning Pretty tired now so I apologize if I wasn't clear or made a few grammatical mistakes here and there.

[Anyway]

Seriously what the fuck at the biggest case of TL:DR ever in the last post.

[Xfaustx]

any clinton > bush

[Sho]

any clinton > bush

Bolded for significance.

[Xfaustx]

and when i say bush i dont mean what most of your girlfriends have


but seriously, the only thing Clinton did wrong, was get some head. i would rather a president who can get some, than a president who goes to war for nothing. dont give me the "lolsupport the troops crap either" >.>

in the words of a great rapper "Bush doesnt care about black people"
lolol oh Kanye

[Plow]

Wow Devek, your posts are so idiotic there's hardly a point to respond, but I will anyway. Gimme a minute.

[Plow]

Is that caused by..

A) Drugs
B) Poverty
C) Video games
D) Something else?

Or are you saying that video games causes people to do drugs and become poor? Or are you saying there is an increase of crime because of drugs? Poverty hasn't changed much though I'm too lazy at 1:21am to look up those facts.

If drugs cause people to commit violent crimes and drug use is on the rise and video games are not responsible for drugs than we need to factor out the violence caused by drugs which would mean that for normal non-drug addicted people violence is even lower than the graph shows.

Should I mention that the moral of the story of GTA:SA(that prompted Hilary to write her bill) was that drugs were bad?

What the fuck are you talking about? You tried to tell me that in recent times crimes are down, and then accuse me of assuming crime is up because it's on TV. I am not assuming that, I've seen a very small part of what's going on in America today, and I know that it's fucking bad. All I did was give an example in response to your saying I just think crime is high because it's on the news. It had nothing whatsoever to do with what is the cause.

He doesn't NORMALLY write serious pieces and he wasn't sure if he makes good serious articles however the issue is serious and the facts are real. He states that. He never says the article isn't serious and the article is serious. Read it again.

I'm not being 100% serious either and just having fun here(by that nature that I never take anything that seriously when just talking) but does that mean that I am wrong or lying?

I hate to make a strawman(again) but are you saying that he isn't qualified to write that pieces? Are you a more qualified serious article writer than this guy and how so?

The article was *NOT* serious. You do not read one web site about total crime statistics and claim to be able to make definitive statements that pretend violence has no effect on real violence whatsoever. You'd have to be an idiot. Kinda like what you're doing here.

If that graph doesn't make sense that isn't my problem. Their data collection is very scientific and they include their methodology along with their other charts used for each year. You also make assumptions about how the redesign would effect the numbers. They already know the answer to that.

The data before 1993 are adjusted to make them comparable with data collected since the redesign. The adjustment methods are described in Criminal Victimization 1973-95. Estimates for 1993 and beyond are based on collection year while earlier estimates are based on data year. For additional information about the methods used, see Criminal Victimization 2005.

Statistics are very complicated and beyond the scope of anything here but there is a lot of validity to what these numbers say. They are not 100% correct and they don't claim to be and different methods of going about this come with different names.. yet the site says right in your face that CRIME IS DOWN.

If you are using a graph to make your argument, and the graph doesn't make sense, it IS your problem lol. And using a graph that shows a change in recording method and a dramatic shift in results at the exact moment of that change in method... all I can do is shake my head.

If you think you're more qualified to say if crime is down or not than these people who are highly educated and qualified to say so than you can go ahead and knock yourself out but you will be wrong.

Because no educated or qualified person has ever been wrong, especially not deliberately misleading.

Great.. so where is all the other "evidence" she is using on her site to support her case?

Don't know, don't care. For some reason, what factual evidence Hillary Clinton has to support her opinion on one specific view that I agree with is not high on my priorities. Too busy showing idiots what idiots they are.

Maybe the same feeling people get after watching a football game? Violent riots after games get reported on the news.

What? The mental processes for pretending to murder and watching football are a little different.

Are they? You already said:

Have you ever considered that the feeling you get from running over random people in GTA may be the same feeling Dahmer got from eating people in real life? May in fact be the same exact chemical process? You certainly can't say it is

Have you ever considered that the feeling you get from watching a football game may be the same feeling "Dahmer" got from eating people in real life? May in fact be the same exact chemical process? You certainly can't say that it is.

I hate to throw that back at you.. but i'm going to add more to the punch by simply listing one event.

http://info.detnews.com/history/story/i ... ory=sports

On March 17, 1955, thousands of crazed hockey fans in the Montreal Forum went on a seven-hour rampage of destruction and looting that ended in many injuries and the arrest of 100 fans. In later years, the free-for-all euphemistically became known as "The Richard Riot." The other team on the ice happened to be the Detroit Red Wings.

The fans whipped up a fury of anger against one of the spectators at the game between the Montreal Canadiens and the Detroit Red Wings -- National Hockey League president Clarence Campbell. The crowds demonstrated their displeasure over his decision to suspend Maurice "Rocket" Richard, l'enfant terrible of the Montreal Canadiens.

Richard, one of the most prolific scorers in hockey, had a reputation as the most hot-tempered player on the Flying Frenchmen team. Always a high scorer, the Rocket was a shoe-in to win the scoring title of the NHL that year.

During an earlier game in Boston on March 13, Hal Laycoe high-sticked Richard, giving him a nasty scalp cut which later required eight stitches to close. The Rocket exploded in rage, swinging his stick like a baseball bat, smashing it over Laycoe's head and shoulders. He yanked another stick from a player and slashed at Laycoe until the stick splintered. Then he turned on Cliff Thompson, one of the officials, and let lose with a right to the face. Player fights are a part of hockey culture

There ya go.. 100 arrests after watching a single hockey game. Good luck finding 100 arrests after someone played a video game.. and if you do I can simply list more and more riots after a sporting event until you give up and admit defeat.

What the fuck is this? What does an event that occurs when thousands and thousands of rowdy people get together and get riled up have to do with a kid playing a video game alone? What the fuck you want a 1-man riot? How about I find a story where a kid punched another kid in the face after seeing it in a video game? I don't even know how to respond to this really, it's just idiocy. "There was a riot after a hockey game so video games can't possibly be bad no matter what they do!" WTF dude...

Wolfenstein was released when I was 12 and you could go on BBSs and download maps that included pornography and you there were many many various scenarios that we played from being homer simpson and killing his boss to running through levels and shooting naked women.

When I was 8 we played a game called TiM where we would make incredibly elaborate systems to blow up this poor cat..

I could go on and on about my violent video game history but thats moot.

Around that same age I think I even put a few ants under a microscope to watch them burn to a crisp and even pulled the legs off a few bugs to watch them die.

I'm 26 now btw and I'm not going to answer personal attacks.

So you're a perfectly fine example to use to show how video games aren't bad, as long as you refuse to acknowledge the bad parts. OK.

I don't understand what you are saying? I supposed I could intentionally hurt someone if I had to.

Great. Find your local psychological study center. Tell them you'll kill someone and let them study the processes in your brain while you do it. See how that turns out.

8-10 is different than 10-12 and is different than 12-14 etc. Our escape from self-centered neurosis starts from birth. I'm not really an expert here and would have to consult with an actual psychologist about what causes one to move out and have empathy for others or what causes that to stunt it.

There obviously is a point where a kid stops hitting their sister because they don't want to get in trouble(or hit back) and stop hitting her because he/she doesn't want to hurt her.

I have never advocated small children (under 8-10) playing these games but there isn't much of a danger of 6 year old johnny driving to the store and picking up a copy of GTA.

The biggest danger of small children playing games isn't the violence so much as the gravity of the situation these games put them in. I could imagine a child finding stuff in FFXI like a Behemoth KS99 to be very traumatic and it is well known and documented that trauma is very bad in a child's development of any kind.

I think around 12 or so I wouldn't mind sitting down with my daughter and playing a few violent video games. I would love the opportunity to discuss such topics as life, death, and crime in a fun environment with her. I think thats much better than throwing her out in the world to fend for herself.

Yeah, ok. In order for me to teach my kid about how violence is bad and how to take care of him/her self, I'll give em a game where they're rewarded for banging hookers, and get that reward for free if they just kill em afterwards. Makes sense.

It isn't that the controls for drugs/alcohol/cigarettes shouldn't exist so much as how they don't stop kids from getting their hands on this stuff anyway. These things are proven to be harmful for anyone (even adults) and as such the government tries hard to restrict them from minors. Hilary wants to make video games just as regulated as cigarettes.

I. Prohibition on Selling Mature and Adults Only video games to minors
II. Annual Analysis of the Ratings System
III. Authority for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to Investigate Misleading Ratings
IV. Authority to Register Complaints
V. Annual Retailer Audit

I've never seen GTA:SA advertised on Nick or Cartoon network and in fact I think my 7 year old has never mentioned it nor have I seen it in any of the material she has brought home with her from school. I still read Nintendo's mags occasional which is targeted at her age range and no violent games are mentioned there either.

However, once a child is teenage years they ARE going to be exposed to these type of games and from many different angels especially from their friends.

If you've never seen GTA on the *cover* of video game magazines, you really need to get out of the house more. Try going to a gas station, or a grocery store. Maybe sometime after that you can turn on mtv for a few minutes and catch the latest GTA ad during TRL.

Not to mention, all of the things you listed are already in place for movies. It's a proven system that obviously will not work perfectly but when executed it really helps parents to know someone is helping control the things they should be able to control, but can't always do so.

What age kids are you talking about? 4-8 year olds don't usually go to the mall by themselves and have money to buy GTA games.

And what about the ones that live 2 blocks from the used video game store and can run grab it from the 16 year old working the counter with no problems whatsoever? You highly underestimate what's available, and what kids are smart enough to do these days.

If kids will make fun of my kid because I won't let him play the fuck and murder hookers game, there's something wrong with America dammit. And fuck you and your kids for being that thing.

Maybe there is something wrong with America.

Lets sign a bill into law that makes it illegal for kids to tease and make fun of each other. Kids have teased and made fun of each other for hundreds possibly thousands of years and the results of that are well documented too. If you want your kid to be a victim of that and made fun of I suggest you read some of the mental impacts this is going to have on them.

Because that has anything whatsoever to do with what I fucking said. Look dude, if kids are going to make fun of my kid because he doesn't have the latest "Dance Dance Revolution" or some shit, so be it. If kids are going to make fun of my kid because I don't allow them to pretend to fuck and kill hookers, then fuck that, that's not fucking right. And fuck you for promoting it.

_____________________________

The fact of the matter is, you've been told for too long by your right wing friends, and right wing news sources, that Hillary is bad. You don't know why, you don't care why, it's just been imprinted into your brain. And you're a damn idiot that will argue anything, no matter how stupid or ignorant, to support your belief that Hillary is bad.

And you, and the millions upon millions of other idiots just like you are a. why she could never win, and b. the problem with America today.

And there's a good chance more of them will jump in with more retarded ass arguments that a fucking monkey could sit here and debunk all day(well a couple already have in this thread but whatever, this discussion pretty well covered everything they said), but I've got mmorpg's to play so screw you guys, I'm goin home.


EDIT:

One more thing. I'll respond if someone can give me one *GOOD* specific reason/example of why video games should NOT have a stringent ratings system, at least as extensive as that of movies. In other words, who is benefitted by video games not being controlled, and how? (Other than the industry making money lol)

[BRP]

"We are trying to protect the kids" is just a farce. What most of these politicians want is to completely remove videogames so it can be like the 'good old days', some distorted vision they have of a perfect world. Well, honestly, they just want votes... and blaming cooperations instead of 'average' people for violence is a good way to get them.

[Not Kuno]

I think Clinton is a cockhole for her retarded views on video games and I've voted every 2 years since I turned 18. I hope she loses and I sure as hell will vote for whoever, from saint to demon spawn trying to enslave us all, against her.