Ugg, Gore, Clinton, Give In To Libermen

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Well, thanks to some damn Clinton funded study(which states that the entertainment industry is trying to target/currupt me/teens, which is untrue, RC5 allready did that;)), the Democrats have hoped on the "anti-games/movies" bandwagon.:| You'll get my copy of UT out of my, cold, gibed hands!
 

ltk007

Banned
Feb 24, 2000
6,209
1
0
Bah, if I didn't have Quake 3 I would have already killed some of the stupid drug addicts in my school. Boy that'd be fun... :Q
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Gore-Liberman = MORE GOVERNMENT!

Actually, I think this is being discussed at this moment for vote getting and the free advertisement value. Hollywood has too much invested in Clinton/Gore for them to do anything substantive. Hollywood is made up, for the most part, of Left-Wing Radicals. Many are self-described Socialists...or worse! This might be an attempt to seperate, at least until the election, the Democrat ticket from those Left-Wingers so as to pickup votes from moderates.

Wonder where all the Liberals went that were always claiming Republicans wanted Censorship?

Want more? Vote Gore!

Bush-Cheny = MORE OF YOUR MONEY IN YOUR POCKET!
 

DanC

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2000
5,553
0
0
You guys are actually starting to sound like conservatives. Bravo!
 

eyor

Banned
Feb 7, 2000
1,641
0
0
"Should I poke Rod with a sharp thing like the cat did?"

What I want to know is, what is Ugg's opinion on the situation?
[edit] Oh, I get it know. Thought maybe he was third party or something. Carry on. [/edit]
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Yep, heard on the news tonight Clinton proclaimed, "the current game ratings system doesn't work". This is the voluntary ratings system Joseph Censorman rammed down our throats. It's a "tool" to allow parents to make informed purchasing decisions and it's a "good thing". Now the bastards are saying it isn't working. At this rate Gore and Censorman will push for banning all games. Just a matter of time. It's a "feel good" issue, fits in a 30 second sound byte, and the uninformed Joe Q. Publics of this country will swallow it hook, line and sinker. Damn, Damn, Damn!

Tominator, you may be right about Hollywood being exempt from attack but the PC and video gaming industry certainly isn't.

Lets push for some common sense. Vote third-party!
 

ltk007

Banned
Feb 24, 2000
6,209
1
0
The day I label myself a conservative is the day i jump off a bridge. The day I label myself a democrat is the day I jump of a bridge. The day I label myself is the day... ah well you get it.


Both parties suck, its a fact.
 

CyberSax

Banned
Mar 12, 2000
1,253
0
0
I think the current rating system is working fine. All games are labeled, so that folks can know beforehand what kind of objectionable content is in a game.

Now for the government to step in and try to discourage games like Quake from being made, or try to make it harder for those games to be sold in stores, that's just wrong.

Most psychologists believe that violence in movies and games isn't the cause of violence, but rather a catharsis for it. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris didn't get violent from playing Doom, if anything, playing Doom probably helped to contain their innate violence. Who knows, maybe the Columbine high school massacre happened because their hard drive's crashed the former week and they didn't have an outlet for their violent tendencies :Q

Joseph Censorman

LOL! That's a good one. Mind if I use that sometime? ;)
 

dennilfloss

Past Lifer 1957-2014 In Memoriam
Oct 21, 1999
30,509
12
0
dennilfloss.blogspot.com
"it's the lack of parental guidance and not violent video games that's causing our youth to go nuts!"

I agree Red Dawn. That and the lack of deterrence. When I was a kid, if I ever would have thought about stealing a bubble gum at the corner store, the next thought would have been about all the hell I would have gotten both from my parents and from the authorities. There was no "Young Offenders Act" back then; stealing was the same whether you were 12 or 52. Nowadays, they know that any record they get as a juvenile gets erased when they reach 18 years old (in most situations). Now how scary is that?

Another thing that doesn't help is seeing their role models get away with slaps on the wrists for felonies like the illegal possession of a firearm. Quite an example. When I was young, Paul McCartney got booted out of Japan and prevented from ever going back just because he had a joint in his luggage.

The Mess (Paul McCartney)
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,546
6,706
126
You are what you eat. Monkey see monkey do. I think a society filled with violent content gets mirrored in the next generation. I used to be opposed to censorship of any kind. Now I'm concerned that in a headlong rush to find the next thrill, that is to say the next dollar earning thrill, we have abandoned modesty, good taste, and instinctive revulsion for horror. It is in this area where the notion of freedom with responsibility is truely applicable. Violence is a complicated issue with many causes, but the notion that media violence is without any impact is naive and self serving, in my opinion.

Again, I think women will lead on this and it will once again be an issue of mommy taking away our toys. We're gonna act like children having to do what's best for us.

Naturally violent media hasn't affected me. That's why I think it would be guiet poetic to beat the shlt out of Hollywood writers and producers etc, until they get the idea. We could use the limbs of murdered children to bash them with, film it and make some money.

 

rush2112

Junior Member
Sep 11, 2000
18
0
0
Red Dawn,

If there is one person that we could name as a root to these problems (which we can't, it's to dynamic) I would say one name:
Dr. Spock!

He took the woodshed out of America, so to speak.

-=)Rush(=-


 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
<< Joseph Censorman

LOL! That's a good one. Mind if I use that sometime? >>

As much as I'd like to force you to pay royalties for its use, CyberSax, I'm willing let you and anyone else use that phrase anytime you wish. It sends a direct message to our young people about how wrong legislating every last bit of morality is. :) :(
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Red Dawn

I'm a &quot;baby Boomer&quot; and just raised 7 kids.It took both my wife and me working to get them through there first 18 years.We didn't have time for parenting.My children will testify to that. That shows a taxing blood sucking government and fat cat politicos have just as much responsibility for fvcked up kids as the parents or video games.

Now,I have the time to observe my grandsons playing games on our playstation and when they get up from a session of palystation with a fighting game or shooter game,they go out and act out the violence in there play with one another. That alarms me!
Sears and Penny's do not put those games on there shelves and walmart and kmart will card for purchases of m or r rated games or videoes. Thats fine,but it may not be enough to leave it voluntary. If a new rating system or laws are passed to protect inocent impressionable minds,then I am all for it.
It is not the teenager I worry about.It is the 1st grader and the pre schooler.
I do not believe videos or games are an excuse for the decreped behavior exhibited in Columbine and Paducah and oregon.There is something else wrong with that picture and it wasn't a playstation game.IMHO:)
 

Blackhawk2

Senior member
May 1, 2000
455
0
0
I'll tell you what. I'm 22 years old, life is boring...I need a thrill (adrenalin) now and then. Quake3 and other first person games give me that thrill, and calm my nerves. If they take that away, I'll simply look for an alternative thrill. Video games happen to be a thrill that doesn't harm anyone outside my house. Lets keep it that way.
 

Athanasius

Senior member
Nov 16, 1999
975
0
0
The post WWII years induced a deliberate atempt to create a consumeristic society that would prop up the economy that no longer had a war effort to pull it out of potential depressions. One problem of this is that it created in the baby boomer and following generations a true &quot;psychology of entitlement.&quot; Since we titillate the consumer in every area, (money, sex, violence, food, you-are-entitled-to-it-all) we become numb to the subtler virtues of relationship building, thrift, simplicity, and self-denial.

The parents are the key. When parents learn to live simply, avoid debt, practice charity, and focus on building relationships that are genuinely altruistic, then the child will be influenced in such ways.

Instead, since we lack the will (in many cases) to replace consumerism with simplicity, consumer debt with disciplined long term savings, and a video-indulge me mentality with the hard work of relating to real people in benevolent ways, we will most likely continue to generate a psychology of entitlement that will demand that the government/church/school system/&quot;mommy&quot;-of-your-choice save us from ourselves.

Unless we are saved by grace. Grace is the road less traveled, but it is the true road home. In the end, each individual has to decide whether or not they will walk this road, alone if need be.