I dont know about nyone else but i live in Canada, i dont own a ps3 but i really want one. So the **** at sony decide to instead of lower the price which was at $656.99+tax=around $750. THEY ACTUALLY MAKE IT MORE PRICY AT 699.99+tax= PRETTY MUCH 800 FRIKIN DOLLARS. do they not want to sell the system at all?
That's way too much to pay for a PS3, screw them man. And as for the "blue-ray player is more expensive" argument: yes, a blue-ray player is about $1000, but that's not worth it either so how does your comparison work?
A dvd player was $1000 about 10 years ago, was it worth that price then? Hells no.
I agree with you, Sony may be eating a lot of the cost but hey, it was their stupid decisions that led to the extremely high cost of producing PS3's. Right now the current price isn't justified considering x360 offers a lot more for a lot less money. Sony shoudl have just focused on making the best gaming system period, but no, they had to take too many risks trying to make the PS3 some ultimate fusion of media functionality.
I agree with you, Sony may be eating a lot of the cost but hey, it was their stupid decisions that led to the extremely high cost of producing PS3's. Right now the current price isn't justified considering x360 offers a lot more for a lot less money. Sony shoudl have just focused on making the best gaming system period, but no, they had to take too many risks trying to make the PS3 some ultimate fusion of media functionality.CaptainCrazy
Let's see how that argument holds up in 4 years. They're already stumbling on storage capacity and it's only been a year for them.
I dont know about nyone else but i live in Canada, i dont own a ps3 but i really want one. So the **** at sony decide to instead of lower the price which was at $656.99+tax=around $750. THEY ACTUALLY MAKE IT MORE PRICY AT 699.99+tax= PRETTY MUCH 800 FRIKIN DOLLARS. do they not want to sell the system at all? smeags11
I would say move to the U.S. but you may want to hold out on that until after the 08' elections. If hilary doesnt win, then you can move here, if she wins, I'm moving to Australia. I suggest you do the same
[QUOTE="CaptainCrazy"]I agree with you, Sony may be eating a lot of the cost but hey, it was their stupid decisions that led to the extremely high cost of producing PS3's. Right now the current price isn't justified considering x360 offers a lot more for a lot less money. Sony shoudl have just focused on making the best gaming system period, but no, they had to take too many risks trying to make the PS3 some ultimate fusion of media functionality.emitsu97
Let's see how that argument holds up in 4 years. They're already stumbling on storage capacity and it's only been a year for them. I haven't heard any serious outcries from developers regarding disk space. And there's a very easy solution, just put the games on more than one DVD. No big deal. I would rather have the odd game on multiple dvd's than pay a premium for a videogame system that's desperately trying to be a blu-ray player and a PC.
[QUOTE="emitsu97"][QUOTE="CaptainCrazy"]I agree with you, Sony may be eating a lot of the cost but hey, it was their stupid decisions that led to the extremely high cost of producing PS3's. Right now the current price isn't justified considering x360 offers a lot more for a lot less money. Sony shoudl have just focused on making the best gaming system period, but no, they had to take too many risks trying to make the PS3 some ultimate fusion of media functionality.CaptainCrazy
Let's see how that argument holds up in 4 years. They're already stumbling on storage capacity and it's only been a year for them. I haven't heard any serious outcries from developers regarding disk space. And there's a very easy solution, just put the games on more than one DVD. No big deal. I would rather have the odd game on multiple dvd's than pay a premium for a videogame system that's desperately trying to be a blu-ray player and a PC. Imagine Halo 2 on the Dreamcast, then imagine all the creative cutbacks that would have to be made...that's what happens when you don't upgrade formats each generation. You haven't heard any yet because the competition hasn't heated up yet. Imagine Halo 3 being a lot smaller than Killzone 2....well stop imagining because it will be. 9 gig vs 50...wonder which game will have bigger areas, more enemies, better A.I., more weapons, more explosions, and bigger mulitplayer? Wonder no more...
I haven't heard any serious outcries from developers regarding disk space. And there's a very easy solution, just put the games on more than one DVD. No big deal. I would rather have the odd game on multiple dvd's than pay a premium for a videogame system that's desperately trying to be a blu-ray player and a PC.CaptainCrazy
That's not what I'm talking about. The proprietary HDD on the 360 is pinching folks. They also just released new larger memory cards and are initially sweetening the investment by including Geometry Wars on them for a short time. They didn't build a machine that would match the needs of software demands, namely more software and media saves means more space needed. They're bandaging. MS focus was to be first to the party, Sony's plan was to be the last to leave.
[QUOTE="CaptainCrazy"][QUOTE="emitsu97"][QUOTE="CaptainCrazy"]I agree with you, Sony may be eating a lot of the cost but hey, it was their stupid decisions that led to the extremely high cost of producing PS3's. Right now the current price isn't justified considering x360 offers a lot more for a lot less money. Sony shoudl have just focused on making the best gaming system period, but no, they had to take too many risks trying to make the PS3 some ultimate fusion of media functionality.NextGenNow
Let's see how that argument holds up in 4 years. They're already stumbling on storage capacity and it's only been a year for them. I haven't heard any serious outcries from developers regarding disk space. And there's a very easy solution, just put the games on more than one DVD. No big deal. I would rather have the odd game on multiple dvd's than pay a premium for a videogame system that's desperately trying to be a blu-ray player and a PC. Imagine Halo 2 on the Dreamcast, then imagine all the creative cutbacks that would have to be made...that's what happens when you don't upgrade formats each generation. You haven't heard any yet because the competition hasn't heated up yet. Imagine Halo 3 being a lot smaller than Killzone 2....well stop imagining because it will be. 9 gig vs 50...wonder which game will have bigger areas, more enemies, better A.I., more weapons, more explosions, and bigger mulitplayer? Wonder no more... lol..Owned.
considering x360 offers a lot more for a lot less money.
------
You must be kidding right?.
jaspey
A lot?? If a $100 is a lot less money, but considering you get HDMI, Blu-ray, Bluetooth, a much better built unit, free online, etc etc etc. I think it's worth it. What's the lot more X360 offers? Halo and Gears??
-Yes I'm comparing X360 20gb to the 20gb PS3, Core is a horrible value since you don't get wireless controllers and you still have to buy either the Harddrive add on or memory card to even save games.
[QUOTE="smeags11"]I dont know about nyone else but i live in Canada, i dont own a ps3 but i really want one. So the **** at sony decide to instead of lower the price which was at $656.99+tax=around $750. THEY ACTUALLY MAKE IT MORE PRICY AT 699.99+tax= PRETTY MUCH 800 FRIKIN DOLLARS. do they not want to sell the system at all? blitzinger123
I would say move to the U.S. but you may want to hold out on that until after the 08' elections. If hilary doesnt win, then you can move here, if she wins, I'm moving to Australia. I suggest you do the same no stay in canada
[QUOTE="smeags11"]I dont know about nyone else but i live in Canada, i dont own a ps3 but i really want one. So the **** at sony decide to instead of lower the price which was at $656.99+tax=around $750. THEY ACTUALLY MAKE IT MORE PRICY AT 699.99+tax= PRETTY MUCH 800 FRIKIN DOLLARS. do they not want to sell the system at all? blitzinger123
I would say move to the U.S. but you may want to hold out on that until after the 08' elections. If hilary doesnt win, then you can move here, if she wins, I'm moving to Australia. I suggest you do the same
I totally agree... if Hillary wins this country has some serious problems. Not only with it's new leader but also with the citizens who voted.
[QUOTE="blitzinger123"][QUOTE="smeags11"]I dont know about nyone else but i live in Canada, i dont own a ps3 but i really want one. So the **** at sony decide to instead of lower the price which was at $656.99+tax=around $750. THEY ACTUALLY MAKE IT MORE PRICY AT 699.99+tax= PRETTY MUCH 800 FRIKIN DOLLARS. do they not want to sell the system at all? lokestar
I would say move to the U.S. but you may want to hold out on that until after the 08' elections. If hilary doesnt win, then you can move here, if she wins, I'm moving to Australia. I suggest you do the same
I totally agree... if Hillary wins this country has some serious problems. Not only with it's new leader but also with the citizens who voted. wats wrong wit her
[QUOTE="NextGenNow"][QUOTE="CaptainCrazy"][QUOTE="emitsu97"][QUOTE="CaptainCrazy"]I agree with you, Sony may be eating a lot of the cost but hey, it was their stupid decisions that led to the extremely high cost of producing PS3's. Right now the current price isn't justified considering x360 offers a lot more for a lot less money. Sony shoudl have just focused on making the best gaming system period, but no, they had to take too many risks trying to make the PS3 some ultimate fusion of media functionality.Goku004
Let's see how that argument holds up in 4 years. They're already stumbling on storage capacity and it's only been a year for them. I haven't heard any serious outcries from developers regarding disk space. And there's a very easy solution, just put the games on more than one DVD. No big deal. I would rather have the odd game on multiple dvd's than pay a premium for a videogame system that's desperately trying to be a blu-ray player and a PC. Imagine Halo 2 on the Dreamcast, then imagine all the creative cutbacks that would have to be made...that's what happens when you don't upgrade formats each generation. You haven't heard any yet because the competition hasn't heated up yet. Imagine Halo 3 being a lot smaller than Killzone 2....well stop imagining because it will be. 9 gig vs 50...wonder which game will have bigger areas, more enemies, better A.I., more weapons, more explosions, and bigger mulitplayer? Wonder no more... lol..Owned. I think the last two people quoted better learn how computers work...the amount of content availble at anyone time is determined by the RAM. In otherwords, how many textures,character meshes, and maps can you fit into one multiplayer game? 512 mb worth... The only thing lacking with the xbox because of DVD will be the quality of FMV.
[QUOTE="Goku004"][QUOTE="NextGenNow"][QUOTE="CaptainCrazy"][QUOTE="emitsu97"][QUOTE="CaptainCrazy"]I agree with you, Sony may be eating a lot of the cost but hey, it was their stupid decisions that led to the extremely high cost of producing PS3's. Right now the current price isn't justified considering x360 offers a lot more for a lot less money. Sony shoudl have just focused on making the best gaming system period, but no, they had to take too many risks trying to make the PS3 some ultimate fusion of media functionality.neovalkyr
Let's see how that argument holds up in 4 years. They're already stumbling on storage capacity and it's only been a year for them. I haven't heard any serious outcries from developers regarding disk space. And there's a very easy solution, just put the games on more than one DVD. No big deal. I would rather have the odd game on multiple dvd's than pay a premium for a videogame system that's desperately trying to be a blu-ray player and a PC. Imagine Halo 2 on the Dreamcast, then imagine all the creative cutbacks that would have to be made...that's what happens when you don't upgrade formats each generation. You haven't heard any yet because the competition hasn't heated up yet. Imagine Halo 3 being a lot smaller than Killzone 2....well stop imagining because it will be. 9 gig vs 50...wonder which game will have bigger areas, more enemies, better A.I., more weapons, more explosions, and bigger mulitplayer? Wonder no more... lol..Owned. I think the last two people quoted better learn how computers work...the amount of content availble at anyone time is determined by the RAM. In otherwords, how many textures,character meshes, and maps can you fit into one multiplayer game? 512 mb worth... The only thing lacking with the xbox because of DVD will be the quality of FMV. RAM is what determines what is available? interesting, most of the time ram is a place to toss things for quick reference. rarely are any major operations like textures, maps, etc. stored there, not sure where you get this from. all the major computing is done by...you guessed it, the CPU and GPU. anything that might be coming up will be cached at the CPU, and each SPE has their own personal 256mb of memory. i think you need to learn a bit more about RAM, its not as important as you seem to think. the cell has plenty of room for quick memory access, its just not put in a consolidated place for people who look at certain numbers, and dont understand the rest
[QUOTE="lokestar"][QUOTE="blitzinger123"][QUOTE="smeags11"]I dont know about nyone else but i live in Canada, i dont own a ps3 but i really want one. So the **** at sony decide to instead of lower the price which was at $656.99+tax=around $750. THEY ACTUALLY MAKE IT MORE PRICY AT 699.99+tax= PRETTY MUCH 800 FRIKIN DOLLARS. do they not want to sell the system at all? Miguel16
I would say move to the U.S. but you may want to hold out on that until after the 08' elections. If hilary doesnt win, then you can move here, if she wins, I'm moving to Australia. I suggest you do the same
I totally agree... if Hillary wins this country has some serious problems. Not only with it's new leader but also with the citizens who voted. wats wrong wit her Besides the fact she would try to ban as many video games as she possibly could?
I thought Clinton was just trying to keep M Rated games out of children's hands, but I could be wrong. What's so bad about that? Would you let a young child play a game like Manhunt?
I thought Clinton was just trying to keep M Rated games out of children's hands, but I could be wrong. What's so bad about that? Would you let a young child play a game like Manhunt?bitedcurbnow
Politicians take and take and take away. You have to remember they get paid to please everyone. Most people don't understand video games the way we do and would just as soon see most of them banned if it meant "safer" or more "Godly" we as gamers cannot let happen and must stand firmly against those who in any small way think they can cast our beloved games aside for votes.
I thought Clinton was just trying to keep M Rated games out of children's hands, but I could be wrong. What's so bad about that? Would you let a young child play a game like Manhunt?bitedcurbnow
dont you think thats a job for parents not the government? government is there to protect the country, maintain the cities, and run civil services. them butting into everything in life, and deciding what is appropriate for anyone is silly. its called parenting, if the parents cant do it, then they shouldnt be parents, should they? if they restrict those games, then the sales of them will probably go down, and by by the games you love, dont be so short sighted
[QUOTE="bitedcurbnow"]I thought Clinton was just trying to keep M Rated games out of children's hands, but I could be wrong. What's so bad about that? Would you let a young child play a game like Manhunt?Gzus666
dont you think thats a job for parents not the government? government is there to protect the country, maintain the cities, and run civil services. them butting into everything in life, and deciding what is appropriate for anyone is silly. its called parenting, if the parents cant do it, then they shouldnt be parents, should they? if they restrict those games, then the sales of them will probably go down, and by by the games you love, dont be so short sighted
Yes, it should be the parents' responsibility, but parents cannot watch their children 100% of the time. Can a child walk into a store and buy a copy of Hustler? No? Why do you think that is??
[QUOTE="Gzus666"][QUOTE="bitedcurbnow"]I thought Clinton was just trying to keep M Rated games out of children's hands, but I could be wrong. What's so bad about that? Would you let a young child play a game like Manhunt?bitedcurbnow
dont you think thats a job for parents not the government? government is there to protect the country, maintain the cities, and run civil services. them butting into everything in life, and deciding what is appropriate for anyone is silly. its called parenting, if the parents cant do it, then they shouldnt be parents, should they? if they restrict those games, then the sales of them will probably go down, and by by the games you love, dont be so short sighted
Yes, it should be the parents' responsibility, but parents cannot watch their children 100% of the time. Can a child walk into a store and buy a copy of Hustler? No? Why do you think that is??
cause i have yet to see a normal store that carries hustler? most kids dont walk to the porn store? you mean they might see violence, much like they did for THOUSANDS OF YEARS with public executions, and really didnt change anything. im sure telling kids not to play a violent game, then letting them watch the news filled with violence is a good change. cause lord knows that real life violence is so much better than in game violence. i dont mind them restricting sale to minors for the game ratings, but they already do that. she wants them to stop being made, and thats painfully obvious.
cause i have yet to see a normal store that carries hustler? most kids dont walk to the porn store? you mean they might see violence, much like they did for THOUSANDS OF YEARS with public executions, and really didnt change anything. im sure telling kids not to play a violent game, then letting them watch the news filled with violence is a good change. cause lord knows that real life violence is so much better than in game violence. i dont mind them restricting sale to minors for the game ratings, but they already do that. she wants them to stop being made, and thats painfully obvious.Gzus666
Well I don't know where you live, but many gas stations and convenience stores have adult magazines right behind the cashier around here. And if you think that a child that sees a public execution and nothing would change for them, you are living in a dream world. Face it dude, some things just aren't appropriate for children.
As for the "painfully obvious" point you made, I'll believe it when I hear the words spoken from her that she wants these games banned.
[QUOTE="Gzus666"]cause i have yet to see a normal store that carries hustler? most kids dont walk to the porn store? you mean they might see violence, much like they did for THOUSANDS OF YEARS with public executions, and really didnt change anything. im sure telling kids not to play a violent game, then letting them watch the news filled with violence is a good change. cause lord knows that real life violence is so much better than in game violence. i dont mind them restricting sale to minors for the game ratings, but they already do that. she wants them to stop being made, and thats painfully obvious.bitedcurbnow
Well I don't know where you live, but many gas stations and convenience stores have adult magazines right behind the cashier around here. And if you think that a child that sees a public execution and nothing would change for them, you are living in a dream world. Face it dude, some things just aren't appropriate for children.
As for the "painfully obvious" point you made, I'll believe it when I hear the words spoken from her that she wants these games banned.
I'll end this on a simple note. You vote Clinton you don't vote for games. She stands in opposition to most games and will readily stand in opposition to future ideas brought before her to regulate them. Then you get what the Aussie's have...retarded regulations governing what games they can and can't have. As for her saying them? She has LONG been a beacon of support to those who have seeked action against gaming like Lieberman, good ole Jack, and various institutions seeking ground against gaming as a whole. People want the money and power a growing media like gaming offers....so if they cannot directly control it, they try to destroy it. Just look at big tobacco..though smoking is bad, it's a matter of freedom to smoke...yet politicians cannot control the money it makes....so they attack it for votes (until lobbyist get to workin on em) The same applies to games..the last thing we want is for Clinon to make it her mission in life to topple big bad games...which as we already know...if it gives you a vote..it gives you a reason.
I'll end this on a simple note. You vote Clinton you don't vote for games. She stands in opposition to most games and will readily stand in opposition to future ideas brought before her to regulate them. Then you get what the Aussie's have...retarded regulations governing what games they can and can't have. NextGenNow
I'm sorry, but with all the things going on in this country, video games will be the last thing on my mind when I head to the polls. If somebody voted with video games being the foremost issue in their mind, I'd consider that a travesty, IMO of course.Â
[QUOTE="NextGenNow"] I'll end this on a simple note. You vote Clinton you don't vote for games. She stands in opposition to most games and will readily stand in opposition to future ideas brought before her to regulate them. Then you get what the Aussie's have...retarded regulations governing what games they can and can't have. bitedcurbnow
I'm sorry, but with all the things going on in this country, video games will be the last thing on my mind when I head to the polls. If somebody voted with video games being the foremost issue in their mind, I'd consider that a travesty, IMO of course.Â
The by all means, sacrafice your own civil liberties. Personally, I like Obama more than Clinton and would easily cast him my vote over hers.
I agree with you, Sony may be eating a lot of the cost but hey, it was their stupid decisions that led to the extremely high cost of producing PS3's. Right now the current price isn't justified considering x360 offers a lot more for a lot less money. Sony shoudl have just focused on making the best gaming system period, but no, they had to take too many risks trying to make the PS3 some ultimate fusion of media functionality.CaptainCrazy
how are u getting more with the 360 ? the ps3 is the best deal over all you fail
[QUOTE="blitzinger123"][QUOTE="smeags11"]I dont know about nyone else but i live in Canada, i dont own a ps3 but i really want one. So the **** at sony decide to instead of lower the price which was at $656.99+tax=around $750. THEY ACTUALLY MAKE IT MORE PRICY AT 699.99+tax= PRETTY MUCH 800 FRIKIN DOLLARS. do they not want to sell the system at all? lokestar
I would say move to the U.S. but you may want to hold out on that until after the 08' elections. If hilary doesnt win, then you can move here, if she wins, I'm moving to Australia. I suggest you do the same
I totally agree... if Hillary wins this country has some serious problems. Not only with it's new leader but also with the citizens who voted. im in the army and if she wins m either moving to canada or killing myself
[QUOTE="NextGenNow"] I'll end this on a simple note. You vote Clinton you don't vote for games. She stands in opposition to most games and will readily stand in opposition to future ideas brought before her to regulate them. Then you get what the Aussie's have...retarded regulations governing what games they can and can't have. NextGenNow
I'm sorry, but with all the things going on in this country, video games will be the last thing on my mind when I head to the polls. If somebody voted with video games being the foremost issue in their mind, I'd consider that a travesty, IMO of course.Â
The by all means, sacrafice your own civil liberties. Personally, I like Obama more than Clinton and would easily cast him my vote over hers.
I've never claimed to know a lot about politics, but I would assume that the banning of any video game would violate the first amendment of the Constitution. Is it really that easy for someone to ignore the document which is the foundation for America?
[QUOTE="NextGenNow"] I'll end this on a simple note. You vote Clinton you don't vote for games. She stands in opposition to most games and will readily stand in opposition to future ideas brought before her to regulate them. Then you get what the Aussie's have...retarded regulations governing what games they can and can't have. NextGenNow
I'm sorry, but with all the things going on in this country, video games will be the last thing on my mind when I head to the polls. If somebody voted with video games being the foremost issue in their mind, I'd consider that a travesty, IMO of course.
The by all means, sacrafice your own civil liberties. Personally, I like Obama more than Clinton and would easily cast him my vote over hers. I totally agree, besides obama has 1000000 times more charisma and will actually get some of the most apathetic citizens to care about our govt again much like kennedy did with his youth and charisma. The games issue isnt just about the games dude, its about your freedom that many men have died to protect being threatened by overzealous censorship. The sell of games to minors is already supposed to be a huge nono and can get a store fined big time. Its just like the movie industry's r rating.
[QUOTE="NextGenNow"] I'll end this on a simple note. You vote Clinton you don't vote for games. She stands in opposition to most games and will readily stand in opposition to future ideas brought before her to regulate them. Then you get what the Aussie's have...retarded regulations governing what games they can and can't have. bitedcurbnow
I'm sorry, but with all the things going on in this country, video games will be the last thing on my mind when I head to the polls. If somebody voted with video games being the foremost issue in their mind, I'd consider that a travesty, IMO of course.Â
The by all means, sacrafice your own civil liberties. Personally, I like Obama more than Clinton and would easily cast him my vote over hers.
I've never claimed to know a lot about politics, but I would assume that the banning of any video game would violate the first amendment of the Constitution. Is it really that easy for someone to ignore the document which is the foundation for America?
That's the whole point...it's a blatant violation of the 1st amendment...and if they would be able to control a strong media such as gaming or the film industry, then they could enforce stricter censorship..and the very people you would appeal to on these issues for help................would be the very people who endorse their censorship.
Don't mess with me man..I'm a member of PETA 8) I noes my's rights!
Don't get me wrong... I'm no Hillary supporter, but I've never read one thing that says she supports the ban of any video game. If I were to read such a thing, I'd obviously be abhorred. Also, you guys are clearly smarter than me on issues like these. But when it comes to little kids playing super violent video games, I would hope people would agree that it's wrong.
Don't get me wrong... I'm no Hillary supporter, but I've never read one thing that says she supports the ban of any video game. If I were to read such a thing, I'd obviously be abhorred. Also, you guys are clearly smarter than me on issues like these. But when it comes to little kids playing super violent video games, I would hope people would agree that it's wrong. bitedcurbnow
Don't get me wrong... I'm no Hillary supporter, but I've never read one thing that says she supports the ban of any video game. If I were to read such a thing, I'd obviously be abhorred. Also, you guys are clearly smarter than me on issues like these. But when it comes to little kids playing super violent video games, I would hope people would agree that it's wrong. bitedcurbnow
I agree with that theres an age for everything and while i love gta i would not let an 8 year old sit and ply it-its just inappropriate i mean i wouldnt let my child watch anything like saw so why would i let him or her play gta
Don't get me wrong... I'm no Hillary supporter, but I've never read one thing that says she supports the ban of any video game. If I were to read such a thing, I'd obviously be abhorred. Also, you guys are clearly smarter than me on issues like these. But when it comes to little kids playing super violent video games, I would hope people would agree that it's wrong. bitedcurbnow
When is the last time a running canidate declared censorship? lol! Nobody declares such things publicy until they have consolidated power on the issue. And in the case of censorship one only need look at a track record for proof of it's coming...Clinton has done more than her part in censoring things in the past when she was given various offices. I wouldn't trust her with gaming because she stands too far left on all issues of violence just as some conservatives stand too far right...the way to handle censorship should be YOUR right period. Basically, you're saying hey guys you decide for me. It can be debated ten million ways but that is the basic point.
[QUOTE="bitedcurbnow"]Don't get me wrong... I'm no Hillary supporter, but I've never read one thing that says she supports the ban of any video game. If I were to read such a thing, I'd obviously be abhorred. Also, you guys are clearly smarter than me on issues like these. But when it comes to little kids playing super violent video games, I would hope people would agree that it's wrong. NextGenNow
When is the last time a running canidate declared censorship? lol! Nobody declares such things publicy until they have consolidated power on the issue. And in the case of censorship one only need look at a track record for proof of it's coming...Clinton has done more than her part in censoring things in the past when she was given various offices. I wouldn't trust her with gaming because she stands too far left on all issues of violence just as some conservatives stand too far right... Really, if a candidate relegated one of their primary platforms to ensuring that children are "safe" from the "evil" videogame and movie monsters, and did a lot of work in campaigning towards said promises, I wouldn't vote for them at all. And the reason is twofold. One, it's up to the parents, not the government, what their children are exposed to. While parents are still nowhere near perfect, and often fail in their duties as parents, it's still rightfully their decision to make, and it should never be up to governments to legislate that. Secondly, I'd be worried about my tax dollars going towards something so ridiculous. Know what's going to deter kids from crime more than a videogame is? Better schools and education systems. Less poverty and a more generally balanced economy, including reducing the strong difference between the poor and wealthy in this country. Less money pissed away on the "war on drugs," and actually spent on something that's actually productive, like any of the aforementioned situations. Unfortunately, it's a pipe dream that American politics will, in my lifetime, do everything it rightfully can for the good of its constituency - Especially when the constituency is too ignorant to realize what the real problems, victims, and possible solutions are.
Log in to comment