Germany considers ban on violent games

By on June 8, 2009, 12:11 PM
Violent games may soon be a thing of the past in Germany. GamePolitics reports that the country’s sixteen interior ministers have banded together to petition the Bundestag (Germany's equivalent of Parliament) for a ban on both the production and distribution of violent games. If approved, the ban could be fully enforced before the next German elections in September, forcing companies like Crytek to either relocate or outsource development work.

The country has been hard on video games in the past with bans on Manhunt and Dead Rising taking place, or even going as far as to require alterations to the cover art for Left 4 Dead, but an outright ban on every violent game would significantly hurt the European market for mature games and threaten the country’s games industry. The proposal is gaining a lot of attention as it comes in the wake of a school shooting in which sixteen people were killed, with the 17-year-old shooter being revealed as a Far Cry 2 and Counter Strike fan.




User Comments: 31

Got something to say? Post a comment
xempler said:

Games don't kill people....people kill people. Millions of people play similar games and they don't go around shooting people.

In regards to the 17 year-old who went around killing sixteen people, I don't think the games Far Cry 2 and Counter Strike was the problem. This person was obviously disturbed and had deeper issues.

For all we know, he could of watched a baseball game and taken a bat to sixteen people's head. So banning these type of games won't solve the problem of these psychotic, demented people.

polidiotic said:

Indeed. I second that thought. I wonder if they're just getting sick of the WW2 games. ;P lol

nazartp said:

All this stuff is so highly debatable... Can't really say that games do not contribute to violence - I have no reliable data to base it on - and don't have any evidence to the contrary. Just being a fan of the game doesn't mean a person would go and shoot a bunch of people. On the other hand who know how the game affects a young mind. That being said, what about freedom of speech? Europe starts to strongly remind me of the USSR.

polidiotic said:

Most countries in Europe are Socialist countries. The people have let the governments get out of hand, much like here in the US. A video game, I don't think, is attributable to freedom of speech, because they're sellable products but even saying that (and I don't think sellable is a word, but you get the idea) European countries do not have constitutions protecting the rights of people for their freedoms, like we do in the US. Freedom of speech, religion, etc... are not universal human rights, unfortunately.

Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

polidiotic; not to be an ass or anything but please don't write crap like "European countries do not have constitutions protecting the rights of people for their freedoms"

Everything infact is covered by free speach, including games and movies, however just like in the US pornography is not allowed for people below the age of 18, and many movies are rated similar to "R" in the US where the visitors must be 15 years of age atleast

There is unlike the US no censorship of "bad words" and such crap in the regular media (atleast in Sweden)

I always find it funny as hell that it's not allowed to use swear words in the US media at certain times of day, however showing someones brain being splattered all over a wall is fully ok

"The European Convention on Human Rights, signed on 4 November 1950, guarantees a broad range of human rights to inhabitants of member countries of the Council of Europe, which includes almost all European nations. These rights include Article 10, which entitles all citizens to free expression. Echoing the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights this provides that

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

Adhmuz Adhmuz, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I still just find it odd that it always seems to be age related to these shootings, just because the shooter is not an adult it makes him more likely to be brainwashed by video games in to thinking its alright to kill? I don't think it has anything to do with the games hes playing but more the people he socialises with and the rest of his living invironment. It's funny how millions of other people of similar age play thses games without killing their friends and or family. Whats not to say that some one in their thirties wasn't influenced by tv sitcom in to believing they could get away with murder, those shows seem to be left alone. Maybe it's just me, I spent the better part of my youth playing GTA and FPS without ever considering actually stealing a car and going on a murderous rampage.

Phantasm66 Phantasm66 said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't Germans have all this filthy porn stuff that they seem to think is OK?

http://www.thelifeingermany.com/2008/04/germanys-attitude-to
ards-sex.html

As you read the German newspaper, you are often to find sex more open, leading one to believe that the attitude towards sex is Germany is much more open than most countries.

In Munich's Central Park, office workers spend their summer lunch breaks sunbathing nude, which of course shocks many tourists not used to this attitude of sex. I've often seen people swimming in rivers nude.

So they are being selectively prudish now?

TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Germany is ultra-sensitive to violence stemming from the 107 million casualties caused by them cranking up WWI and WWII. Especially after the fall of Nazi Germany. The Germans spend a lot of time and energy distancing themselves from that and anything even remotely considered violent.

Do violent games make people want to pick up guns and go shoot other people? Of course not. But for an already disturbed person, I don't doubt that the "glory" effect of shooting virtual people ala Far Cry 2 or Fallout 3 couldn't have some (but not all) influence.

I just want to see what Germany's excuse will be the first time a mass murder takes place and there are no video games to blame.

Phantasm66 Phantasm66 said:

Computer games don't cause violence.

Porn doesn't cause rape.

People cause these things.

polidiotic said:

Per Hansson, you're confusing laws for constitutional freedoms/rights. In addition to this, please refer to the several ways in which the UK and other countries in Europe actually prohibit protests on certain subjects and ban people who are vocally controversial.

Some examples of the awesome freedoms in Europe:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/
ar/06/freedom-of-speech

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston
4604985/Whatever-happened-to-free-speech.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-banned-from
britain-named-and-shamed-1679127.html

(Now, I'm not one for allowing terrorists or murderers into my country... but Michael Savage? A doctor? A conservative radio host? Someone taken out of context on a day-to-day basis? C'mon...)

The news dictates differently. Freedom of speech does exist, but to what end? Especially when they can pick speech apart and say what's legal and what's not... There is no constitution, as I've shown this forum, for the country of France, just like most European countries, that dictate the freedoms of the people. Like France, the UK has a constitution that dictates how the country is governed, but that's about it. The apparent freedoms come from the "European Convention of Human Rights." Obviously there are stipulations... when it comes down to the way a country is governed. In fact, it seems that the government laws/regulations of a country supersede the Human Rights document, so how effective is it, really?

polidiotic said:

And here I forgot we were talking about Germany... they have a whole slew of additional issues. ;/

Guest said:

This seems like a knee-jerk reaction based on emotions rather than evidence. This silly search for a scapegoat happens every time a school shooting occurs. I guess it wasn't violent music this time.

At any rate people whose lives have been ruined need something to fill their time so they can pretend like they're preventing it from happening again.And politicians need to make a name for themselves. Let's not give them too much grief.

Staff
Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

polidiotic; what I am saying is that the US is not different

Try going to a 9/11 meeting and telling them it's all a big conspiracy, most likely you will be asked to leave by the police

Like Michael Moore was in his film "Fahrenheit 9/11"

Note that I'm not in any way defending some of his views, I'm only defending his right to express them

So before you speak so highly of the US constutution (and ignore the many atrocious changes to it by the Bush regime) please don't explain why Europe is so much worse

Sure, there are some really shitty ideas in some contries, especially the muppet goverment in the UK trying to turn it into some 1984 version of total goverment surveillance like China

But really most things that are not allowed as far as free speech go is the same as in the US, for example trying to starta riot through hate speech etc is illegal in Europe too

There are some other understandable ammendments for example in Germany and some other countries where is is not legal to deny the holocaust for example

TBolt said:

This is such a touchy subject...but again, I am left with thinking this is another example of a "shotgun approach" (pardon the pun): Rather than addressing and fixing the root issues, countries are looking at the obscure and taking aim at addressing the issue by some sort of non-specific blasting.

Now, that being said, I would be a little irresponsible to say violent video games have absolutely nothing to do with kids going of the deep end...factually, I believe there may be a very small influence there but it is certainly not the catalyst for them going out and performing mass murder. As some have said, their act stems from a deep rooted psycological issue that was likely there before their video game "addictions".

So, what's the proper solution? IMHO, it's not some broad-base approach like "bans" but a proper addressing of the issue. Mental health is the issue that needs to be addressed. That, my friends, starts at home...with the parents. Why are teens/pre-teens playing mature games in the first place? And if parents allow this, they should be monitoring their kids' activities a little closer to ensure their kids arent exhibiting some unhealthy attitudes - if they are, get them some professional help. Also, there must be stronger enforcement for who buys these games...under 18 purchasing a rated "M' game at your local game store is what needs to be corrected. If parents are okay with their kids playing those games, they need to be the one purchasing them...then they need to be willing to have better interaction and responsibility with their kids in the first place.

Global bans may be, in government eyes, the "right" approach. But it's just a band-aid covering up a (mental) issue that is still there. It also punishes everyone else who purchases/plays/enjoys that sort of media entertainment without having any kind of influence and confusion with reality versus virtual reality.

polidiotic said:

You're allowed to deny 9/11 and the holocaust all you want in America. You can blame the government and claim it's a conspiracy all you'd like, and people do on a daily basis. It's not illegal to make such claims, just as it's not illegal to hold KKK parades and meetings, or to be associated with the Communist political party.

You're being fooled by watching anything created by Michael Moore, as he's produced so much controversial crap, based on lies, rumor and the blatant use of actors in his "documentaries." If Michael Moore wasn't allowed to say the things he does or ask the questions he does, then why is he able to produce a movie about his relentless and ridiculous questions... and gain wealth by doing so?

I'm not touting the "greatness" of America... I'm just stating facts. I'm also not stating that European countries are inferior or "worse." We have a written constitution that differs from many countries in the world, stating specifically, the freedoms of the citizens of this country... and the limitations of government (which is something Obama hates). The founding fathers of this country understood corruption of government, as they fled Britain and seceded from that nation for a reason. They understood the importance of freedom and a people's inaliable rights.

Anyway, the only "atrocious" change that Bush made was the PATRIOT act... which infringes on our rights to privacy, which I disagree with... but honestly, it won't affect you unless you're planning on terrorizing the country. That can be amended, however, and hopefully will in the future.

Don't be so defensive. If you're European, I don't mean to insult you, I'm just stating facts and pulling links supporting it. =/

Wendig0 Wendig0, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Germany has been trying to repair their image for over half a century now. For a long time it looked as if they had made alot of progress. Now it seems as if they're moving backwards. First book burning, now banning video games. Interesting. Say "No" to big government.

SNGX1275 SNGX1275, TS Forces Special, said:

If germany is backpedaling I'm not one to notice/ I hold nothing against them I understand enough about ww2 to forgive the german people. I think a very similar thing should have and for the most part has happened with americans and slavery.

But there is a big "thing" on stuff now. (INtentionally vague)

Nic3694 said:

Hey guys can you please stop commenting about everything in Germany if you don't even know anything about it aside from Wikipedia. I was born in Germany. In Germany and most of western Europe, sexual themes are looked upon way more lightly than Violence. Like someone already pointed out, Germany started to condemn violence after World War 2, because the rest of the world had gotten a violent image from Germany. The same thing just not as bad happened here in the US after the 60's-80's with the sexual revolution. That might be why America has such a big censorship on Television items. After watching the German news past the school shooting (as said in article) I noticed that a lot of politicians AND citizens started to blame Video games. Of course I agree with most people here saying that it would be a bad idea to ban video games. i would much rather look at higher punishments for people who don't lock their guns out with a kid that went to a psychiatric because of suicidal thoughts (This is what happened to the kid that committed the school shooting). But that's just my point of view...

OneArmedScissor said:

Regardless of any discussion of right in various countries, the problem with Germany's approach is that they attempt to distance themselves from their violent, totalitarian past...by dealing with anything related to violence in a near-totalitarian fashion. It's completely hypocritical.

If it accomplishes anything at all, it's just proving that that is how they still function, and always will. Just showing the world that they don't like violence isn't the half of it, as they make every effort to deal with things they don't like in an extremely controlling manner.

polidiotic said:

The Nazi movement started with the idea of a perfect world... unfortunately such a world does not and will not exist. Violence exists, be it in video games or in reality... and that's something you can't escape nor hide.

tengeta tengeta said:

Ban the games, then come here and do it. Then ban the guns.

See how much less murder there won't be as we just kill each other with knives and bombs instead.

Guest said:

If they ban VIOLENT games, they should also ban VOILENT MOVIES AND TV SHOWS.

Guest said:

That's such a ridiculous comment....

I mean thies is a pretty "bad" count but most of the countries and religion on earth have a large amount of blood on their hands...

US -> IRAQ, Indians, Slavery, ...

GB -> Colonial wars, Slavery,...

Spain, Portugal -> Conquista, Slavery

Israel -> killing thounsands of civialians

Sowiets -> killed jews as well,

The Church -> so man people where slayed in the name of God in the middle ages

Germans -> WW 1+2, ...

And so on

Almost every western country/people is guilty for some kind of mass murder.

On topic...

The consideration of a ban is just a sign how helpless and uninformed politians are.

polidiotic said:

Why did you neglect to mention Palestine, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Cuba, China, Japan, Greece, Italy, Vietnam, Turkey, etc, etc, when listing out the countries responsible for bloodshed? It's not just "Western" countries... Look towards Asia, Africa, South America and Europe.

I love how the US is demonized and at the top of the list... First, slavery isn't murder (though slaves are typically not treated well), many of the Native Americans weren't exactly as "peaceful" as you've been led to believe, and irregardless, 75-90% of their deaths were the result of spread of disease that they had no vaccination for (that the Europeans brought to North America), and Iraq was liberated from a dictator who consistently killed his own people, in droves, and was responsible for starting 2 wars.

I also love how Israel is on the list, too... for protecting themselves from an onslaught of terror from Hamas. Yes, they've killed civilians, because Hamas hides behind civilians and has the support of the people they hide behind. But, I guess it's ok that Hamas can launch missles into Israel, killing their civilians, provoking one of, if not the only peaceful (and extremely powerful) country in the Middle East.

I'm sorry... I'm just annoyed by people who half-listen to the news, and when doing so, only listen to that which is offered by the likes of Anti-American organizations like NBC/MSNBC... or read the NYT and Washington Post. These companies sicken me and the educational system in this country is faltering by the wayside, indoctrinating our students with anti-American sentiment and false truths. It's really pathetic.

Not only this, but we have companies (GE) in bed with the government now, pushing green energy that they produce... and who just happens to own NBC/MSNBC/CNBC (who, if you've noticed have been running "green" movements for the last year+). Meanwhile, Al Gore (Nobel Prize Winner for Fraud) is getting rich off of Global Warming... $100million more wealthy than he was, previous to his movie and nobel prize. Pull the wool off from over your eyes.

Now I'm fired up... and you got me off-topic. Darn guests and their anonymity.

Relic Relic, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Polidiotic youre definitely attacking a lot of left leaning organization and individuals here in the US. Always saw you as being an independent, hope you are and not just another fool following the right and there ridiculous talking points (Fox & Co). Especially calling them Anti-American when, news flash, they are a business and controversial topics make them money (Fox obviously being the best at this undeniably).

In any case you do make some interesting points, but some concerning ones as well. While slavery isnt murder it could lead to it and it was a despicable act, while we werent the only ones who did it thats no excuse/justification. And Native Americans agreeably did die majority wise to disease there was intent by some to kill/drive them off which was tragic. And I do agree Native Americans werent peaceful but we kinda did invade there land. And lastly Iraq being on that list from guest makes no sense at all while the other two do (He definitely did some cherry-picking). While we did liberate Iraq from a cruel dictator one I dont think anyone agreed with, our justification for going in has been invalidated. We waged a preemptive military action under the assumption that Iraq had WMDs and a link to Al-Qaida against a UN resolution. Neither has been proven to this date and we have never formally declared war, while I do think in the long run the civilians of Iraq are better off, the cost and justifications are a hard debate that will most likely be going on for a long time if not forever.

I might have misread your point but saying the only thing Bush did wrong was the Patriot Act is a bit laughable. There are plenty of things that come to mind including PatAct, Iraq Hurricane Katrina, the economy - being some of the popular and most mainstream ones. Remember the NSA listing in on military spouses having phone-sex when being deployed? Ya clear threat to our national security and good use of our tax dollars. If I misinterpreted what you wrote my apologizes.

Anyway this is ridiculously off topic and I just wanted to voice my view =P.

Back on topic - I have lived in Germany (grew up there) and personally feel as most of you pointed out that they are just overprotective and bearing on the violence issue due to there past. This is by no means anything new but they are definitely taking it too far imo - however I always did find it funny that as a young teen getting booze and watching porn was no problem violence (guns) however was another matter. But coming back here to the US violence (even buying guns and using) was no problem but porn and booze out of the question! *chuckles*

polidiotic said:

While this is slightly off topic, not really ridiculously off topic, since it IS politically based... I must respond lol:

Ok, I don't know where you stand on your politics, but it seems like you watch CNN... and it SEEMS that you're subscribing to the "Bush-is-evil" point of view - the movement of which, was led by the Liberal mass media. ;]

I do watch Fox News, listen to Joe Scarsborough (replaced Chris Plante in DC), Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Mark Levin. I read a plethora of news from various organizations (including NYT & Washington Post - which sicken me), and I actually read books. I know, ridiculous notion. I do my own research. I also studied and received a degree in Anthropology, which gave me some insight on Native American culture, history and mythology.

That being said, I am a Conservative American (not Republican - anymore) and facts are facts... it doesn't matter where you get your news, so long as it's factual and you can use common sense to figure it out. You seem to forget that journalists are not supposed to have a political point of view and they're supposed to be objective. They're supposed to report the news, not give their opinions about the news or skew the news, etc. That's what's happening and that's what the gripe is about on Fox News, who have also been vilified by the left, because they're pretty much the only non-liberally biased cable news network on television, who's not kissing Obama's *** or blaming America for everything.

Iraq: Please remember that when we went into Iraq, it wasn't based solely on the idea that WMDs were there (though the wrong intel that we had determining that WMDs were there, was a big issue). It was partially because we had intel pointing to their association with Osama Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda. The fact that Saddam Hussein refused to allow the UN to move in to inspect his laboratories/factories based on the intel they had, was the factor that led to an allied invasion. He could have prevented yet another war, had he allowed the UN to inspect his facilities.

To pin the fact that WMDs were not there on Bush is ridiculous, being that he had no way of knowing and all of his intel lead to the belief that WMDs were there. You work with the intel that you have and that's given to you, and based on your investigations you make the best possible decision you can. At the time (and even now), I feel that liberating Iraq was in our best interest. Hussein, if nothing else, was a terror to his own people and a threat to all free countries. It's funny that Iraq turned into a hotbed of Al Qaeda terrorists, no? I mean, regardless of the news media stating that Al Qaeda wasn't there.

Slavery: Yes, Europeans did bring slavery to America, before it was the United States, and via slave ships from Africa. They purchased slaves from black Africans selling other black Africans. It was a big money maker for them and unfortunately, slavery was the norm at that time period. Not saying it was right, because it most certainly wasn't... but blaming the United States for such an atrocious act is ridiculous. In fact, it only took us 86yrs to free slaves from the point of declaring our independence from Great Britain. It took us 86yrs, while it took many other countries centuries and some countries still practice it. While, again, that doesn't excuse us for the use of slaves, I do have to hand it to our founding fathers for setting the "found"ation for a free state for all. This country has done more than any other to increase quality of life for all people and promote equality for everyone.

Native Americans (Indians): Yes, many were killed as a result of war and as a result of expansion. However, we tried our hand at peace with them and they were aggressive. This led to war, when we could have shared the land more liberally. I'm not denying that the Europeans probably had some racial issues going on, which they probably did. The Indians, I would assume, were probably dying by the dozen and felt threatened by the mysteriousness of their illness/disease. I assume they probably felt that witchcraft was involved and thought the white man as the devil and needed to be wiped out. Again, however, we did as much as we could, as a country, to protect their culture/heritage and settlements. They now have protected territories. I would say that Americans are probably the most guilty feeling people on the planet, and we're always trying to right the wrongs of our ancestors, even though those ties are long-past... by hundreds of years.

Bush is not perfect by any means, and I was yelling at him about the silliness of his final acts in office... especially with the passing and support of the first stimulus package, TARP/bailing out the mortgage/financial companies. I also disliked the passing of the PATRIOT act, despite his saying that it was a necessary evil to protect our freedom.

To blame him for a hurricane is just stupid... the media covered Katrina so intently, because it was New Orleans, which is home to many in poverty... and if you don't believe that, then you're just shrouded in progressivism, because TX had a similar hurricane not that long afterward, where even more surface area of the United States was effected - a friend of mine being one of them. The double-standard in this country is absurd. While the mayor and the citizens in New Orleans failed themselves, the people in TX actually worked together to solve their problems, rather than wait for Federal aid. Laziness is to blame for the situation in New Orleans... that, and corruption. Lest we forget the $2k credit cards that were distributed to those who were effected, and the very responsible citizens in that part of the country decided to purchase ipods and other non-essentials.

As for the economy? Look at the numbers: unemployment reaching record lows, stock market reaching epic highs, and the economy flourished from 2002 until 2006, when Democrats took over Congress & Senate. Bush inherited a recession, due to the bubble burst from tech/internet companies, and brought us out of that. He then had the temporary recession due to 9/11, which again... he brought us out of. His tax cuts and economic policies were beneficial for everyone.

In 2006, Democrats were pushing for higher taxes on the evil corporations that employ millions; oil prices started to rise, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and others were still made to push "affordable housing" to those who couldn't afford housing, which lead to the real estate bubble burst in 2007, and then Bush took a turn for the worse. Now we have Obama passing bailouts left and right, taking control of industries/companies, while expanding government, printing money and borrowing money from China, causing an even worse recession than we had with Jimmy Carter... and soon to be worse, as he intends to force his health plan down our throats, force green energy & automobiles, utilize a cap & trade system, etc, etc. So, you can blame Bush all you want, just like Obama does, but remember who's forcing what down your throat. He's had plenty of opportunity to stop spending, bailing out, and expanding government... but this is what he wants.

I love the "talking points" argument... when you talk about facts that the liberal media tends to ignore. It's funny that Fox News and other conservatives have been warning of Obama's extreme-left leanings, ever since 2007, and it's funny that Liberals have been ignoring it and throwing these so-called "talking points" aside, when now we have one of the most liberal/progressive Presidents to have ever served in office.

So, no, Bush has been at fault for several things. He also didn't address the illegal immigration issue, which drives me nuts... but the things you mentioned (besides the PATRIOT act) are just false. The liberal media spun the Katrina story to make it Bush's fault... and they spun the economy story, despite knowing that the economy was flourishing until Democrats actually got control of the majorities in Congress and the Senate in 2006.

I'm sorry for getting into this even further, but you're debating with someone named "Polidiotic," which suggests that this subject is a love of mine, something I follow closely and something I take very seriously, albeit with a grain of sarcasm/humor - I would hope. =X It's your own fault. lol

Back on topic:

Are you under the age of 21? While there are limitations, you're still able to do everything you do in Germany in the US... we even have nude communities and beaches.

polidiotic said:

double post... sorry about that. Storm in the area. ;/

satty said:

Ban violent games... that's not a good idea. How do they prove that violent games cause violence?. Also how do you define "violent"?. A game one might consider violent might look innocent to another

Relic Relic, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Sorry for the delayed response been busy this past week never got around to reply. Gonna be a bit but here I go =D.

First I do not subscribe to the "Bush is evil" non-sense, I may sometimes come off that way but it's not true. I personally believe if I ever meet him we'd get along. I disagree with many of his policies/decisions and I do have a dislike for some of his cabinet members but not him. I live in Texas and have so most of the time I've been residing in the states and was living here when he was governor. When he started running for president I always felt like he never really wanted to be there, and he came off as kinda doing it for the team. Doing it cause of the Bush name and clout, cause he felt an obligation kind of thing...now that that's cleared up back to the rest.

Secondly I consider myself an independent; mainly because I share values with the democrats, republicans and even libertarians. And the news cast I watch the most is Fox actually (Sheppard Smith is the best imo since he rarely gives opinionated news.) But I do watch CNN and MSNBC regularly as well. And I personally gain my news from multiple sources as you do and can agree using common sense and coming to a conclusion on your own is the best way. Getting your news from one source as I'm sure sadly many Americans do just keeps you too narrow-minded and usually wrong. And I have not forgotten that journalists are not supposed to have political pov, but sadly in today's 24/7 news it's very hard to find and since 2000 has been getting worse. All sides have turned more extreme in there broadcasts and make sometimes the most ridiculous and hypocritical statements ever. Fox being the front runner here but not to say the only ones. Then again as I said before it's a business and they make money off this stuff (ratings, advertisements etc), controversial topics bring in ratings and sell. And yes facts are facts but don't always believe everything from news sources as they are and can be purposefully wrong. Akre-Wilson case an example, I recommend reading it if you haven't already. Doesn't matter your view about the situation the argument that won the appeal is well...pretty clever if not completely wrong. But you seem to know most of this already and as you said do your homework on important topics. All three networks have there issues CNN being everywhere (left and right more left thou) and stupidly twitter/facebook/myspace crazy. MSN left and going more left daily blaming the Bush administration and the republicans. And lastly Fox coming from the right blaming the democrats and Obama. I'm not sure if you watch Jon Stewart (gonna guess no but I don't wanna stereotype) but if you don't I recommend watching the June 16 episode second segment (after the first commercial). He makes some great points better then I can here at this hour. It is a "left" show but is rather comical and really points out the flaws and how sad our cable media kind of is.

On the subject of Iraq, I apologize for not elaboration on "UN resolution", what you stated is what I meant just wanted to keep it brief and am already aware of these facts. I am also not pinning WMD's on Bush the man, but Bush the administration. I'm sure you've heard this analogy before as its common but everyone seems to forget it. In football when a team wins (most of the time) you praise the quarterback and if it loses you blame him. That's kind of the deal here, I do believe with the intel at hand (now in hindsight we know it was wrong) Bush did what he believed to be the best course of action, but in my opinion it was a rushed and not fully/properly thought out decision. We both have separate opinions on this and I'm sure we both can come up with compelling arguments of why and why not. But I believe we both can agree that Bush did what he thought was the right course of action to keep this nation safe.

Not exactly sure where you got the idea that I am blaming the United States for slavery as I never stated that. I would actually have to agree with most of your points, but we do share responsibility of it nothing can dispute that fact. If you thought I was defending the guest poster on his cherry-picked list you're sorely mistaken. Same goes with Native Americans most of what you say I concur with, and I was actually discussing the issue of our guilt the other day a discussion that could go on forever.

Now to the Katrina point, I apologize for making a hastily post and giving no real substance. I am not saying "omg Bush did it! all his faultz", I am blaming him though for his reaction. Bush will never be known for good public appearances but he never helped himself with stupidly delayed reactions to a national crises. That was my primary point. Going back to my simple QB analogy on this he's OUR guy he should be properly responding to situations not having cake with McCain...now I'm not saying he could have known what would happen and such a disaster could occur. But com'on he made some seriously bad PR moves and this was what I meant to point out in a quick manner. His entire administration was to slow to react on Katrina while the media did exaggerate of course (controversy and the blame game sell!).

And to the Texas hurricane, as I pointed out earlier I am a Texan and it hit my family very hard. Three of my relatives houses was hit one of them being a very old house that has been with us for generations since my great-grandparents maybe even longer I'm not entirely sure on the history of it. But I do agree it was handled better and I hope your friend is doing well.

Now to the economy...I am sorry but LOL @ "His tax cuts and economic policies were beneficial for everyone." I'll make some brief points here as I am starting to get tired. The economic situation happened under Bush's watch (he even passed a bailout himself!) and I believe he didn't handle the situation properly. You also seem to be blaming the democrats for everything post 2006 which is a rather typical right pov. Personally I believe BOTH are at fault, congress on both sides over the years has made some dumb decisions.

You also seem to forget that under Bush the government expanded to its largest ever (if I'm not mistaken it did under most presidents)...shoot we even had a VP who didn't believe he fell under the legislative or executive branch. Come on now if McCain won he'd have the most expanded government as well. That's what always cracks me up when this is brought up as the hypocrisy is so obvious and disingenuous. Both sides love power, and are to blame for expansion. But personally I think Biden being VP is the best thing since Quayle to "dumb" down the VP office, but I'm sure he can spell potatoe [sic] =P .

Talking points argument is brought up often cause well...its usually true (like stereotypes). The same nonsense is spewed out of the right consistently and it can be irritating especially when spread to people who don't double check. And "Obamas extreme-left leaning agenda/presidency" is ludicrous and false. He is a left leaning president that has several moderate views (torture photos anyone? A call I agree with at this point in time, this information should not be made public for at least 10yrs+). I personally do not agree with everything he is doing but several things I do. I voted for him and believed him to be the better of the two choices. Since third parties in this country are sadly a joke...I really believe this country would be much more moderate and better representative if we just had a strong third party that could properly content =/. No more rallying the base horse**** and then coming to the middle for votes.

Bush (the administration) screwed up many things in my view the only one I can agree with not being properly represented is Katrina that was just bad PR management. But his administration didn't act quickly enough but others are more so to blame imo. The rest he bears responsibility for even if he wasn't alone at fault he was the president. To the immigration/boarder issue, yes you are right it's a shame he didn't address this both sides are scared of this issue and it drives me insane as well. It's a huge national security matter and imo was never - ever properly dealt with. I live on the boarder and the violence and some of the things going on are even more then the media (both sides I might add) have been reporting. Besides Lou Dobbs of course...lol

And I have no problem with this discussion I do take it seriously and believe it's extremely important. I actually enjoyed it, I find most I know dislike going into discussions where we have disagreements simply because they don't care to point out there views or share why they feel that way.

And now its off to bed...zzzzzzzzzzz.....if I seem to be missing some points which I surely am its almost 5 am and I'm stupidly tired :-).

On Topic:

Yes I am over 21, I was just pointing out how comical it is that while growing up I can remember buying cases of beer and booze at 13 for the family not just myself =O. And coming back to the US I had no problems going out and go shooting at a young age.

Guest said:

You know, I actually would like them to see ban violent video games.

I be laughing when they are force to admit that this approach this not solve the violence problem in teenagers.

Twister123 Twister123 said:

here's a good one for ya ,you have someone susceptible to violence because of mental illness or **** prospects in life ,you have a violent movie or video game and you have a weapon ,gun , fork , whatever ...which one of the three is the problem ,the germans are going for the quick fix, not dealing with the social or poor education issues.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.