|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Dec 12th, 2006 01:33 AM | ||
| kahljorn |
you know I wonder which would turn out better anyway voting for morality and jesus or female - black. I wonder if you can reduce voting behavior down to instinct like that. Probably 
|
|
| Dec 11th, 2006 10:13 PM | ||
| Courage the Cowardly Dog |
I know plenty o people who would vote for Clinton/Obama BECAUSE of their race/gender completly ignoring their positions. One of the many reasons I believe affirmitive action is not equality and in this job we need the BEST person for the job and can't sacrifice that to make racial/gender point. I'm fine with a woman/minority/minority-woman president as long as they are qualified and the best for the job. I don't believe those two are. If you are going to get my swing vote as a dissatisfied republican your gonna have to give me better options then those two far left figureheads. |
|
| Dec 11th, 2006 08:38 PM | ||
| xbxDaniel |
Being raised in the South has influenced me to the think that the vast majority of people living down here won't vote for Clinton because she's a woman and won't vote for Obama because of the color of his skin OR background. Personally, I don't want Clinton in office, I'd prefer Obama over her. Still though, I'm under the impression that America isn't going to support either of them just yet.
|
|
| Dec 11th, 2006 07:15 PM | ||
| Emu | I like Obama. He's really level-headed. The only thing I don't like about him is that he's anti-gay marraige, which blows my mind. | |
| Dec 11th, 2006 07:11 PM | ||
| Courage the Cowardly Dog |
Glad to see we're in agreement. So barring her (and personally I don't like Obama either) Who else should we put in the front running? Without Lieberman It's hard to think of a frontrunner I'd vote for as a swing vote. |
|
| Dec 7th, 2006 09:25 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
Has it really always been this bad though like the way america equated morality not too long ago? even the way america defines america is kind of crappy. and the way they constantly dodge issues by putting up other issues but i guess that's the way of politics and leading towards goals. I guess stupid people aren't really anything new but still, it surprises me because sometimes even i feel sick of the shit that's going on and I don't understand how somebody in some other time period didn't feel the same and do something about it I guess the only question(s) I have to go from there is: is it worth it, does it work and why does everything look the same
|
|
| Dec 7th, 2006 09:20 PM | ||
| Preechr |
Quote:
|
|
| Dec 7th, 2006 08:27 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
lol america is a circus recently. hopefully it gets better I wonder if politics/media has always been like this though and I was just too young to recognize it. |
|
| Dec 7th, 2006 08:26 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
How is it good for the gaming industry if the FTC launches an investigation into the hidden sex content of Grand Theft Auto? She wants to spend 90 million on a commission to discuss this kind of shit. Is the world in such a harmonic state right now that we have the luxury to make morality issues in the media a priority, let alone toss big money into investigations? Isn't that something we expect out of a bunch of bible belt Christians instead? I mean, what could someone who "stands by her man" after the guy gets caught getting blowjobs from an intern at a public service job have to tell anybody about sex morality let alone corrupting the youth? Fuck that. |
|
| Dec 7th, 2006 06:15 PM | ||
| Chojin |
You guys are aware that this conference is between those politicos and the ESRB, and it's about working together instead of trying to destroy the game industry, right? I dunno, it seems trivial to you guys, but it's important to me at least that a candidate for the presidency doesn't have some sort of insane agenda against the industry I'm involved with ;< This was actually a good thing for me to hear today ;< |
|
| Dec 7th, 2006 05:02 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx | The worst part about despising Hillary, is that she evokes such a special brand of hatred it practically defies articulation, and can easily be written off as just irrational criticism. But no, she's as soulless as it gets. Pelosi is right behind her. | |
| Dec 7th, 2006 03:40 PM | ||
| Cosmo Electrolux |
 this picture of her turns me on for some reason..... |
|
| Dec 7th, 2006 03:32 PM | ||
| Geggy |
Quote:
|
|
| Dec 7th, 2006 03:24 PM | ||
| mburbank |
I could never be in politics. I have more skeletons in my closet than most. In addition, I hate and am almost incapable of any sort of glad handing and under very small amounts of temptation I tend to say really awful stuff. I've been an actor. That's about as low as I think I can sink. On the other hand, my Maternal Grandfather was a fairly major figure in the early days of the AFLCIO, back when meant risking getting truncheoned every time you stood up to 'the man'. While I imagine I'd hate being truncheoned, I do like the idea of rabble rousing and yelling myself red in the face about issues of social justice. Unfortunately, nobody goes for that sort of stuff anymore. Maybe I could bring it back. Did I mention just how much I hate Hillary Clinton? |
|
| Dec 7th, 2006 03:14 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
Yea. Young children can be caused to do violent behaviors from videogames/cartoons but it's not like they are thinking, "I WANT TO KILL MOMMY BECAUSE I HATE HER GUTS AND SHE SMELLS LIKE FUCKING SHIT" it's more like, "Lol ill cut mommy in half and candy will come out then we'll have a party together and I'll have two mommy's". also i think the behavior of removing the blame where it should be also creates more problems :O that happens so much that it's ridiculous. People need to take responsibility for their bullshit, and they shouldn't be rewarded for it. |
|
| Dec 7th, 2006 03:10 PM | ||
| BobDole | Exactly. I have no problem with the idea tha violence in videogames can encourage and shape violence, but I do have a problem when we state that they're the cause of violent behavior. Which doesn't work, since humans are, in general, violent begins (physically and verbally), and thus it comes to merely being an attempt to shove part of our nature onto something we created and claim it to be the cause. We've become so apathetic to our own nature and the nurturing of our young, that we ignore actually raising them and, if something goes wrong, instead place blame on our own artificial creations. | |
| Dec 7th, 2006 03:02 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
Quote:
Usually by the time a child is old enough to want violent videogames he would already have violent behaviorisms (I'm not proposing a link there, just saying they would already have violent behaviorisms). I think violent behaviorisms are supposed to start to appear around the ages 10-12. Therefore, not only can violent video games not be the CAUSE of violent behavior (except maybe in young children, but they are often violent because they don't know any better and saw it in a movie or videogame) but the violent behavior would've existed beforehand and the parents likely chose to ignore it-- and that type of behavior from parents is exactly the type of behavior that creates bad behavior in children. As for deterring young children from thinking cartoons are real consider telling them that it's not real and it's fake, which should work to alleviate violence unless the child has violent behaviorisms-- which chances are weren't caused by the cartoon anyway. Basically young children are stupid and can be deceived into believing fiction easily. Surprise. After age 12 though that childish innocense should be completely lost and the only thing that could cause them to be violent is preexisting violent thoughts. The only thing I can imagine a videogame doing is showing routes through which to take out violence, but the violent urge would've still been there. So, if anything, videogames could exaserbate and shape violence but it should never be a CAUSE of violence. |
|
| Dec 7th, 2006 02:48 PM | ||
| sspadowsky |
Quote:
|
|
| Dec 7th, 2006 02:39 PM | ||
| BobDole |
Quote:
I agree with you that I'm all for the sale of mature games being restricted. I have a problem, however, when we get to the point in proclaiming videogames are the main cause of violent behavior in our youth. Not that that's what you're saying; I'm just putting that statement out there. |
|
| Dec 7th, 2006 02:30 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
I had thought Obama was going to win but I don't know much about politics People have been making such a big deal over him for the past six years, "HES SO NEW AND DIFFERENT AND FRESH AND YOUNG THE NEW JFK" crap like that. Stuff people who have been wrecked by a bunch of old idealogies would probably want to cling to, but I don't think who people want to run even matters really. I guess a woman president would be pretty fresh too. 2008 Presidential Elections sponsored by Subway, eat fresh. |
|
| Dec 7th, 2006 02:28 PM | ||
| ArrowX | Shes shaping up to be Jack Thomson but effective at what shes trying to do. I'm all for restricting the sale of violent games to minors but if your gonna blame anything for their impact, blame parents and retailers who aren't enforcing the ratings system. I'm not sure how your games shops work in the states but in Alberta when you go to buy an M rated game they ask for ID in allot of stores or make sure the parent with the kid is aware of the games content. | |
| Dec 7th, 2006 02:20 PM | ||
| BobDole |
By stopping the flow of violent video games, we stop the flow of terrorism, which is it's obvious originating point. Obviously. While I generally look on disdain with the importance politicians apparently put on the concept of violent videogames somehow being the eventually destroyer of civilization, this takes the cake. The fact that anyone can somehow put preeminence on this topic with all the other shit that's going on in the world is mindblowing in how idiotic and apathetic it appears. Unfortunately, I fear that Hillary may be unstoppable in getting the Democratic nomination, unless Obama somehow becomes popular enough to stop her. |
|
| Dec 7th, 2006 02:15 PM | ||
| kahljorn | I think it's called Tyranny of the (teemingly stupid) Masses and it's one of the reasons why democracy is/can be a failure. | |
| Dec 7th, 2006 02:05 PM | ||
| ArrowX |
thats the worst part of democracy is that public opinion invariably turns out to be a matter of personal popularity because about 40% of the continent is fucking retarded
|
|
| Dec 7th, 2006 02:00 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
I don't know guys never(or rarily) in the history of politics or the world has somebody that was needed been involved Usually it's just the richest and most popular. plus if max got into politics he'd probably turn evil and try to ban i-mockery from the internet or something. |
|
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
