[OFFICIAL] Hillary Clinton running for 2008 President!

[Fhqwghads]

Plow the fact that you'll sit here and go to great lengths to defend a perma-ragging raging bitch who wants the government to raise the nation's children instead of letting the parents own up to their responsibility nullifies all the incessant whiny points you attempt to make. The government should not be the one to make the rules for what a child can and cannot do (with respect to this stupid video game debate at least.) This is a PARENTAL responsibility, not a federal.

I was laughing at a post you made a while back when the thread swung into your views of "omg Hilary is right" when you stated that kids shouldn't be sitting around playing GTA for "hours and hours on end." You know what, if that's what parents agree with, then the PARENTS needs to put a stop to them playing, not the government. If parents would pay more attention to what their kids were doing for "hours and hours on end", then more kids wouldn't be playing GTA.

Fuck you, and fuck anyone else who wants to displace blame when shit goes wrong. You and others like you are the same dipshits who sue McDonald's because you think putting a cup of boiling coffee between your legs is a good idea while you're driving a goddamn car. Suck it up and take responsibility for your actions, whether it be common sense, parenting, or anything else that is patently controllable within your own power. I swear to god this whole line of thinking is causing the human race to take evolutionary steps backwards.

[Jimmayus]

I don't see what the problem is with actually enforcing video game rating systems. I worked at gamestop for quite some time in High School, at it was surprising how rarely people even looked at the rating; several times a week I would be asked to sell a game like GTA to a kid who obviously wasn't old enough. But that's just personal observation.

The large majority of the bill that Hillary is proposing would not even affect most of the BG community. Are any of you younger than 17? In fact, you probably wouldn't even notice its' implementation, unless the actual oversight committee was fucking crazy, and I'd be more worried about right-leaning individuals than left in terms of restriction of rights.

Also about the crime drop; there has been a statistical drop in crime from the early 90's; any criminology textbook published recently will bring it up, with various reasons which are unnecessary to discuss. However, a graph of total crime versus the inception of video games into the market is a really horrible graph to work with from the beginning.

Primarily, the game is in too limited a release to make any serious impact on crime. Think about it. Even with several million copies sold, most of those copies will go to people our age (20) and above, people capable of discerning the difference between reality and emulation. Also, none of us are in situations where the crimes being displayed are even possible. The game simply doesn't reach so many people that it would impact any graph in a serious way.

Clinton's proposal on enforcement of the ratings system would simply, in theory, eliminate much of the chance of said video games reaching the hands of children who do not have a way of discerning reality from fakery. That demographic is decidedly small, which is another reason why it doesn't affect a graph. However, it is still a cause for concern for some, and that is the point.

I don't think the bill would make any serious impact on gun crimes or child violence, just because it would affect a much smaller base of people than could possibly influence the total average crime rate for the year. However, having worked in video game retail, I can honestly say I support enforcing ratings, in the exact same way I support movie ratings. Ask yourself if you think movie ratings are a good idea, and then realize it's the same deal here; if you have no qualm with movie ratings, than it's regretable, but probably hypocritical if you don't support similar enforcement of video game ratings.

[Kenai]

I read through every post here, but honestly...it's easy to see why the U.S. people got fooled, and continue to get fooled, the way they do. There's a lot of people, here and in general (in fact the MAJORITY of people), who honestly think they know what they are talking about, but have obviously not taken anything related to a course in basic International Relations, Political Science, Critical Thinking, or Social Problems, or if they had...well...even scarier I guess.

Seriously, what the hell? Stuff is there for you to figure out, I know quite a few of you are either in college or college grads, but even if you aren't, please take the time to actually be smart about what you are saying and thinking. I'm sure I'll see something like "don't expect a miracle from the idiot masses today" or whatever but it's just sad. It's amazing that people think that Hilary Clinton would seriously do something like "ban video games" (which by itself is a retarded statement) with the current system on administration and enforcement and people's rights in place? About how many people actually believed most of the ads that the U.S. Health Administration ran that discounted any government regs whatsoever when even just looking at how a *little* government involvment in the health care systems in every single other developed and industrialized country shows just how much bullshit those ads were? (seriously, the U.S. has by far the worst and most ineffective system out of any major country). About just how much shit we are in right now in terms of IR with other countries thanks to Bush's blatent lies and policies about Iraq, and how other people have had the nerve to blame some of the canidates for saying yes to Iraq when they were based on the "facts" at the time, when everyone else, including the majority of the population, had been told that womd had been found there? Seriously, what Bush has done to IR with other countries these last few terms might have just possibly been worse than any other previous president, but I'll have to do some hunting to see if my opinion on that is justified.

Seriously, don't you guys read the real data shown in both sides of the story, and at least look based on your own views, and not just what you hear off the news or what popular opinion/other people tell you? I'm honestly trying to figure out what any political candiate, democratic/republican/whatever, would do to make anyone "run to Canada" that Bush hasn't done already... this is all recent stuff. Everyone here should be old enough to remember and actually gleam something themselves instead of the same old media crap. There's too much availability to information for ignorance like this. I don't really know who I will vote for, but some of the misinformation that is out there already, and what people are buying into already, is really bothering me. We are supposed to be the generation of the Information Superhighway, and learn from the stupidness of the previous generation, so why aren't we making much progress? I don't expect the U.S. to change overnight, but...

[Fhqwghads]

with the current system on administration and enforcement and people's rights in place?

Enforcement of our rights is in a crisis imo. Bush and his administration are taking massive liberties under the guise of fighting terrorism. When I hear of other politicians wanting to spread more government control over decisions citizens should be making for themselves, then I have a big problem with it. With regards to Hilary's crusade against video games, there are way too many other critical areas that this nation needs government intervention in order to fix. Her stupid smoke and mirrors act over something so trivial does nothing to win votes for anyone who has real concerns over the direction of the country. Granted that's probably not the focus for her election platform, but since she's made it one of the bullet points in her crusade, it warrants some attention.

The point being: our rights are in jeopardy, and I sure as hell don't want some over-zealous bitch like Hilary to continue violating the rights of US citizens like Dubya is doing. Stating that our rights are protected is a farce in this day and age.

[Kenai]

with the current system on administration and enforcement and people's rights in place?

Enforcement of our rights is in a crisis imo. Bush and his administration are taking massive liberties under the guise of fighting terrorism. When I hear of other politicians wanting to spread more government control over decisions citizens should be making for themselves, then I have a big problem with it. With regards to Hilary's crusade against video games, there are way too many other critical areas that this nation needs government intervention in order to fix. Her stupid smoke and mirrors act over something so trivial does nothing to win votes for anyone who has real concerns over the direction of the country. Granted that's probably not the focus for her election platform, but since she's made it one of the bullet points in her crusade, it warrants some attention.

The point being: our rights are in jeopardy, and I sure as hell don't want some over-zealous bitch like Hilary to continue violating the rights of US citizens like Dubya is doing. Stating that our rights are protected is a farce in this day and age.

Hmm...depending on the situation, I am inclined to agree on some points. But not on this particular scenario, not the video games vs Hilary debate (I'm not sure how much I do or don't like Hilary, but I'm being reasonable/realistic here, and basing my opinions on several different sources and a little of my own digging). It's a common stereotype that I see in people who have not played video games, and if she truly wants these sanctions that I keep *hearing about* but not actually seeing (because all I have really found is the stricter ratings, which isn't a big deal, those links didn't show me anything), then by all means I will consider these claims to be justified. Even if she doesn't like videogames, I don't care, but I of course expect her to respect the fact that I do like them, and I will be very dissapointed if I see her trying to campaign something completely unreasonable, because that would say something about her character vs issues that she isn't very familiar with, but I don't see it, so I can't say she's going to go on this tyrade I keep hearing about. Even now, some serious laws are being put into place because because of Bush to prevent a second "mistake", and the video game industry iself is heavily protected by those very stiff and firm laws that protect every business organization. Video games aren't something like tobacco, and with actual real data out there on video game violence, and the amount of people that are continually growing up in a video game environment and becoming registered voters, among many other things, I just can't see how there is any real issue that something seriously drastic will realistically come to pass. The only thing I seriously could see them doing is really cracking down on the sale of 17+ video games directly to minors right now, and as much as I think that it won't really solve the main issue (which is the mainstream ignorance factor), I don't see any infringment from it. When I see some real effort by her to infringe upon my video game rights (again, I don't even see what people are so worried about, video games are not going to "be banned" or anything, it's not even close to realistic), then I will maybe be a bit more understanding. But for now, no.

[Plow]

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.

This just makes my heart hurt.

[Metah]

Sorry for late entry but this just has to be placed onto the battlefield known as BG Politics:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/12

[Devek]

I don't see what the problem is with actually enforcing video game rating systems. I worked at gamestop for quite some time in High School, at it was surprising how rarely people even looked at the rating; several times a week I would be asked to sell a game like GTA to a kid who obviously wasn't old enough. But that's just personal observation.

When you can provide direct evidence that GTA is harmful to 16 year olds you might have a point. Many people swear that these games make them less violent but I'm tired of this argument.

There are other issues at work here though.

This is something that should be to the states to decide.. local government works better and the federal government is only supposed to take over in areas that it is absolutely necessary.

The other scary side is that it won't just be GTA that gets banned to kids old enough to have a job and own/drive a car. Our tax dollars will be spent on some group to decide what is violent and what is not.. They want to act like the money they are receiving to do their job is actually doing some good so they will include a whole host of games.

Do you not kill stuff in Zelda games? What about driving games where you are encouraged to drive recklessly and above the speed limit? It may sound unreasonable to you now but do you pay attention to how unreasonable these politicians are? In this politically correct world they will go above and beyond and will rather ban a game just in case than appear as though they missed one and didn't do a good enough job.

If Hilary's bill gets passed we will loose all control in deciding what is violent and there will be nothing anyone can do about it unless the entire law is abolished.

What about video game arcades? Will they become 18+ only establishments?

Don't forget how much this will cost.. it might seem simple to do an "audit" of retailers but when the federal government gets involved you're talking about millions of dollars..

[Scythiroth]

When you can provide direct evidence that GTA is harmful to 16 year olds you might have a point. Many people swear that these games make them less violent but I'm tired of this argument.

There are other issues at work here though.

This is something that should be to the states to decide.. local government works better and the federal government is only supposed to take over in areas that it is absolutely necessary.

The other scary side is that it won't just be GTA that gets banned to kids old enough to have a job and own/drive a car. Our tax dollars will be spent on some group to decide what is violent and what is not.. They want to act like the money they are receiving to do their job is actually doing some good so they will include a whole host of games.

Do you not kill stuff in Zelda games? What about driving games where you are encouraged to drive recklessly and above the speed limit? It may sound unreasonable to you now but do you pay attention to how unreasonable these politicians are? In this politically correct world they will go above and beyond and will rather ban a game just in case than appear as though they missed one and didn't do a good enough job.

If Hilary's bill gets passed we will loose all control in deciding what is violent and there will be nothing anyone can do about it unless the entire law is abolished.

What about video game arcades? Will they become 18+ only establishments?

Don't forget how much this will cost.. it might seem simple to do an "audit" of retailers but when the federal government gets involved you're talking about millions of dollars..

Personally, I see these type of games as a bad influence for kids that weren't raised properly. I could have easily played a game like GTA at 16 or younger and never once think about going out and killing people, doing drugs, etc.

[Kenai]

I don't see what the problem is with actually enforcing video game rating systems. I worked at gamestop for quite some time in High School, at it was surprising how rarely people even looked at the rating; several times a week I would be asked to sell a game like GTA to a kid who obviously wasn't old enough. But that's just personal observation.

When you can provide direct evidence that GTA is harmful to 16 year olds you might have a point. Many people swear that these games make them less violent but I'm tired of this argument.

There are other issues at work here though.

This is something that should be to the states to decide.. local government works better and the federal government is only supposed to take over in areas that it is absolutely necessary.

The other scary side is that it won't just be GTA that gets banned to kids old enough to have a job and own/drive a car. Our tax dollars will be spent on some group to decide what is violent and what is not.. They want to act like the money they are receiving to do their job is actually doing some good so they will include a whole host of games.

Do you not kill stuff in Zelda games? What about driving games where you are encouraged to drive recklessly and above the speed limit? It may sound unreasonable to you now but do you pay attention to how unreasonable these politicians are? In this politically correct world they will go above and beyond and will rather ban a game just in case than appear as though they missed one and didn't do a good enough job.

If Hilary's bill gets passed we will loose all control in deciding what is violent and there will be nothing anyone can do about it unless the entire law is abolished.

What about video game arcades? Will they become 18+ only establishments?

Don't forget how much this will cost.. it might seem simple to do an "audit" of retailers but when the federal government gets involved you're talking about millions of dollars..

I'll need to look over the bill again, but honestly, from how I am reading it, it is basically just enforcing the Ratings system already in place. I remember something along these lines acually happened several years ago, back when they first made the newer rating systems (I wanna say in the 1995-6s, but I'm not sure). It was not properly enforced because game stores who tried to keep younger kids from buying these games would soon be follwed by angry parents yelling at the clerks for not selling ___ game (say Mortal Kombat) to their kid. This makes the stores become backed by federal law, which is a lot more serious of an offense, but like I said, it's still kind of ignoring that issue because most parents who care now, would already inspect the game, although it may make the more clueless parents aware that they should at least look at the game and find out why their kid can't buy it.

As for the rest of the stuff, it's kind of slippery-slope-ish to me. How are we getting any less control over us deciding what is and isn't violent in a game (I don't see it in here)? We as a whole don't have much say in it right now anyway. Who seriously cares about the cost when the government will just find something else equally useless to spend it on (yay new Clot's staium I'll never go to). Arcades? I don't know if those even are covered under here, I gotta keep reading...

It comes down to using your brain. Either you are old enough to know better, or your parent should not have bought it for you in the first place. This bill just keeps stores from selling "adult" games to minors.

[Devek]

I'll need to look over the bill again, but honestly, from how I am reading it, it is basically just enforcing the Ratings system already in place.

3/4ths of the bill describe putting together an "independent" body to do an annual analysis of game ratings, gives the FTC authority to investigate "misleading" ratings, and sets up a system for people to complain to the FTC about games that are not rated mature enough.

Sure.. its still the same ratings in place.. except the government will also decide what the ratings should be and has the power to "investigate" if the ESRB disagrees.

[Kyreth]

God I hope we don't fuck up this election too.

No chance. This country won't elect a woman president.

There is a chance. It's quite possible enough women vote for her just because she is a woman. Most of this country doesn't look at what our canidates actually stand for.

She could get votes for being a woman, having a "famous" name and other such things. Clinton was a good president other then his lame sex scandel. I am sure alot of people will think that Hillary will have the same views as Bill and such. Nobody thought GWB would get elected and we fucked that up TWICE.

All I can say is, please actually figure out what the canidates stand for and vote.

Better the wife of a good president than the idiot son of one. And Clinton's kid could kick the crap out of the Bush children anyway. In brains and damn near anything else. Of course, Chelsea isn't handicapped by having a dolt contributing half her genetics.

And I like Clinton. She's been a decent Senator for New York, her experience goes to the top of the executive branch already, and it's obvious she has the stones to do the job. How many Presidents in the USA could say they have an ex-President for a spouse? That's a powerful combination at the top, in experience if nothing else. Some people forget that we're not just electing Mrs. Clinton as President, if we do so- we're making Mr. Clinton the "First" (WTF to call him, I dunno).

People underestimate First Ladies and their influence on the Presidency. Many of the modern ones could have easily gone as far as Hilary had, should they have had the ambition- even if few of them have what I think is the political savvy to match her going further. They're a vital chunk of the support a President has- Clinton might have foundered in the first term without Hilary, or even during the whole impeachment crapfest. Seeing Hilary at the top with that kind of anchor could result in an extraordinary term of office. After all, we've never had two Presidents of the USA going to bed late at night to snuggle and discuss national policy.

[Orph]

Why are people basing thier whole decision on who they vote for based on thier view of video games? Last i checked there are far worse problems with america and the rest of the world, maybe you should look at those.

[Septimus]

Why are people basing thier whole decision on who they vote for based on thier view of video games? Last i checked there are far worse problems with america and the rest of the world, maybe you should look at those.

While this is true, finding scapegoats doesn't solve problems wither. I am not saying that about Hilary, just in general.

People want to find something to blame for the violence and the moral decay of society, over the last few decades they have blamed Elvis, movies, cartoons, heavy metal music, and now our scapegoat de'jour video games. The problem is that violence has always existed and will always exist because it is basic human nature. Just like it is basic human nature to think that things are worse now than they were in the past.

[BRP]

Why are people basing thier whole decision on who they vote for based on thier view of video games? Last i checked there are far worse problems with america and the rest of the world, maybe you should look at those.

I couldn't careless who is President. The only thing that concerns me is my freedom of speech and the freedom of speech of people making things I want to enjoy. I'm neither Democrat or Republican, I'm not going to Iraq, and I'm not afraid to die from a nuclear blast(I probably wouldn't even notice it happening).

[Pamelita]

stuff

<333333

I completely agree with that.

I think a lot of you guys are giving more power to the government than they can ever have (without going into a dictatorship). And I think you're being too narrow. It's not just about violence, it's all the influence your child gets as a whole: acohol, drugs, sex, attitude.

I think that what what they (not just Hillary) are trying to do is just make it easier for parents who don't want their kids to just be able to buy this stuff on their own. If a parent is completely ok with their child killing virtual whores, then whatever, they can buy it for them, it's their children. But I (not the lulzgovernment) am responsible for the child I'm raising, and I will raise them as I see fit.

Are going to allow your 14 year old to play GTA and then expect them to listen to you when you ask them to be obedient?

My point with that example is that those kinds of things should be prevented, and some parents find it hard to influence their children to wait for the right time to do what they want to do, when there are massive amounts of negative influence everywhere you turn. You all also have to remember that just because your kid doesn't do it, it doesn't mean that no kid will ever do it.

It's very true that if someone wants to do something, they will do it. But I don't want to jump over endless hurdles just to be able to control it the influence he/she gets while he lives with his/her family. And I want my children to have a carefree childhood, and have fun, and I don't want them to have sex at 13 years old, and I want him/her to learn and mature in a safe environment. And if when he/she is 18 he wants to kill some hoe's then so be it.

But back to the topic... <_< Most politicians are slimy and it's sad that they have to resort to butcher the credibility of the oponent for them to have a good campaign. That was way too aparent in November. And it's up to us to change that: to research and to vote for those who share our views and stand up for them (for the most part), not for the one who you see as a "raging cunt" based on one aspect of their career when there are many more to take into consideration.

*edit typos and stuff

[sephir]

Countries such as Canada, UK, France and Germany have all enforced the game rating system with laws and since doing so have had a reduction in crime rates, but the US hasn't. Many of the posters above have said that "I wasn't affected by playing GTA at 14" but just because you weren't affected doesn't mean that nobody is affected. Even if 1 in 100 becomes desesitized to violence because of games like GTA and manhunt that means that many more Assaults, rapes, robberies, etc.

Besides I think there are more important problems in America than video games. I read an article somewhere that the National debt's interest rates are eating something like 15% of all tax dollars raised in the US, and whats scary is that it is increasing by $2billion dollars a day. How long before this becomes such a huge amount that things such as Health care, Schools, infrastructure have to be cut back because the government cannot afford to pay for the debt and keep those programs alive.

[archibaldcrane]

You guys all realize that there has been ...basically the exact same rules concerning movies as Hilary is attempting to - not implement, but increase enforcement on.

You can't see an R or NC-17 rated movie without an adult until you're 17. You can't buy a M or AO rated game without an adult until you're 17.

These rules have been in place for at least a few years, Hilary just wants them to be enforced. And why the fuck not. Are movies more or less "damaging" to certain moronic/disturbed youths than video games? I'm sure some of you can argue that til you're blue in the face. One thing we can all agree on is that there are a ton of shitty parents out there. They aren't looking to restrict the rights of ADULTS here. These aren't people that can vote and die in wars and stuff. These are kids - they don't get the same rights as adults because they don't have the same responsibilities.

If parents want them to watch R-rated movies and play M-rated games, that's fine. If parents don't, they shouldn't have to battle every video game store that would gladly sell their 14 year old the most violent, gory, misanthropic games in existence. The stores just shouldn't sell such material to kids without parental consent.

Noone named Hilary Clinton is trying to ban video games. You all....do realize this, yes?

[BRP]

All the law "being enforced" would do is make every fucking game "Teens", just like every movie is "PG-13".

[Kuya]

Why are people basing thier whole decision on who they vote for based on thier view of video games? Last i checked there are far worse problems with america and the rest of the world, maybe you should look at those.

I pretty much agree with this. If she can do something to change things for the better (which i dont know if she will) it wont matter to me if she tries to enforce video game monitoring, there are more important issues out there than how my gaming life will be affected.

But then again Sept is right also, she is just looking for a scapegoat, and the problem roots much deeper than children just viewing violent videogames, which doesn't stop them from seing violent movies or tv shows.

Slipery slope.