SCOTUS sez my 7-year-old can buy Grand Theft Auto

Cornfed Hick

Ancient Mariner
U.S. Supreme Court strikes down ban on selling violent video games to children.  As an American, I think this is obviously the right result.  As a parent, I'm ambivalent.  The Court's opinion (written by Justice Scalia, who's usually fun to read) is here

Just for kicks, I did a Google image search for video game violence.  This screencap made me laugh. 
 
Few minutes ago, I installed GTA IV for the first time.

I agree that some games should be banned for underaged persons. I once played GTA when I was 13-14 years old on my dad's computer. In the game, I entered a bar and started decapitating people with a katana. My father was sitting on a couch behind me and saw me doing it. Next day, I woke up, turned the computer on, and GTA was uninstalled. So I haven't played it for sometime until I got my own computer.
 
I like the idea that the Gov't doesn't put a restriction on that.  As a parent, I think its my duty to keep an eye on what my kids are doing, whether its violent games, online porn, or gambling. 
 
Wasted The Great said:
I like the idea that the Gov't doesn't put a restriction on that.  As a parent, I think its my duty to keep an eye on what my kids are doing, whether its violent games, online porn, or gambling. 

Now see, this is why you're "the Great."  :ok: Get government out of my music, my games, my bedroom, and my bank account.
 
Chartwell said:
Now see, this is why you're "the Great."  :ok: Get government out of my music, my games, my bedroom, and my bank account.

To quote a great former President

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"
 
bearfan said:
To quote a great former President

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Oh dear.

Sorry, but I think Reagan was a terrible man.
 
Everyone certainly has their own opinion, I think he was the probably the best of our 20th Century Presidents ....
 
How so? I never quite understood why he is being worshipped so much. Only the rich benefited from his tax cuts, and for the rest, he caused a recession, mass unemployment and a then-historic budget deficit.
 
This is a bit off topic, but unemployment and inflation rates went down drastically during his tenure, the economy was in pretty horrible shape in 1980 when he was elected and it really started turning around in 1982. Also, everyones tax rates went down, certainly not just the rich.  Also, the trax reform of 1986 did get rid of many loopholes.

Much of the deficit was defense spending, which had an effect towards the end of the USSR and at a minimum made up for years where the military had fallen behind the USSR post-Vietman.  From a purely political standpoint, he got a good part of his agenda through a mostly hostile Congress (GOP  had control of the Senate for 2 years during his 8 years in office, the Dems had control of the House all 8 years and the Senate for the other 6).
 
Reagan will be considered one of the worst presidents within the next 50 years. Reagan did do some good things, but he did some horrendous things too.

The tax reforms were a bi-partisan effort, but his legacy of needless tax cuts led to a debt that quadrupled in size. The tax reform of 1986 was actually really a good step, but....not good enough.

He was a fantastic president in "getting done the stuff he wanted done". And he picked many, many wrong things. Iran-Contra comes to mind.
 
LooseCannon said:
Reagan will be considered one of the worst presidents within the next 50 years. Reagan did do some good things, but he did some horrendous things too.

The tax reforms were a bi-partisan effort, but his legacy of needless tax cuts led to a debt that quadrupled in size. The tax reform of 1986 was actually really a good step, but....not good enough.

He was a fantastic president in "getting done the stuff he wanted done". And he picked many, many wrong things. Iran-Contra comes to mind.

We'll have to disagree on this, Iran-Contra is certainly a low point, but over time that will have the same weight as FDRs court packing and various other schemes that were declared unconstititional.

The 86 reform was bi-partisan, all parties deserve credit, he worked with the Dems when it made sense .. and regarding the debt, there are always two side to running up debt ... how much you take in and how much you spend, the debt started really cranking up in the 1960s with all the Great Society programs that have spent untold trillions with minimal resuts.  The defense runup in the 80s should have ended with the fall of the USSR, but it really never did  (I will not the base closing commission was one of the better "good government" efforts in recent times, but it fell short of looking at weapons systems)..
 
Yep, off topic :) FWIW I too am a fan of Reagan - as an economist who has lived for years in the former Soviet Union, I can tell you what works and what doesn't. But again, this is off topic.

And of course myth always beats reality - like someone famously said, Reality is for those who can't cope with fantasy.
 
Well, when it comes to Reagan I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The difference that I'm viewing it as a non-American to the American view on it is too significant, I suppose.

Chartwell said:
Reality is for those who can't cope with fantasy.

But what the hades is that supposed to mean? I'm trying to find some meaning in that phrase, but just because it sounds wise doesn't automatically mean it is wise. Seriously, what is that trying to tell me?  :huh:
 
Perun said:
Well, when it comes to Reagan I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The difference that I'm viewing it as a non-American to the American view on it is too significant, I suppose.

But what the hades is that supposed to mean? I'm trying to find some meaning in that phrase, but just because it sounds wise doesn't automatically mean it is wise. Seriously, what is that trying to tell me?  :huh:

It was a joke. Meaning that you return to reality because you can't cope with the difficulty of imagination...
 
What is odd is that the only two dissenters were Thomas and Breyer ... that has to be a first.  Another example of California wasting tons of money on it's nanny-stateism.  No wonder that state is in the financial condition it is in.  I lived there for quite a while, beautiful scenery with horribly bad politics/politicians. 
 
The thing about Reagan is that he really...didn't do anything he's supposed to have done. Each claim of his greatness can be pretty much shown to be not him.

For instance, sure, he was in office when the 1970s recession recovered. People seem to have forgotten, though, that this had very little to do with Reagan. In fact, Reagan's plan deepened the recession into 1982, and it only ended when oil prices dropped. Reagan's tax cuts significantly crippled the ability of the US government to receive revenue, and he agreed to 15 tax hikes during his presidency. Despite suggesting that "government is the problem", Reagan oversaw an increase in the size of government while simultaneously reducing income, inflating the US debt from 35% of the GDP to 52% of the GDP. Given that Reagan did oversee the US economy through a very strong boom time, this increase is astronomical, as the GDP in the USA shot up in that period. The Reagan years were anything but fiscally responsible. In hard dollars, the debt ballooned from just over 2 trillion dollars to about 4.5 trillion dollars.

Reagan is often credited with ending the Cold War, but pretty much any scholar of this will tell you that the Cold War ending was a sure thing. Reagan did very little other than suggest extremely insane defense plans, yet managed to increase military spending by over $100 million dollars per year during his terms in office. Meanwhile, perestroika in the USSR, followed by glasnost, led to an input in western ideas, combined with the breakdown of the Soviet infrastructure that did things like "feed people". Some money was diverted to military and other means, but overall, the Soviet Union had been doomed for twenty years and Reagan didn't change that at all, no matter how many times he insisted that Mr. Gorbachev "tear down this wall".

That's just two examples I can come up with before I go to supper. Perhaps FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court, but the Congress of the day didn't let him. Reagan actually sold advanced weapon technology to Iran in order to finance the Contras. That's fucking petrifying. The difference between FDR and Reagan is that someone told FDR to stop. Reagan just did it, kept it secret, and put on a babyface when he got busted.
 
Back to video games. I find even the attempt of this law ridiculous and glad it didn't go through. anybody under the age of 17 must show an ID if they want to see a rated "R" movie in theaters, yet they can buy it at Wal-Mart? So how about making it corporate policy? The rating systems are there as a guide, not much else. If stores like Wal-Mart, Target, etc sell these products then they can make it store policy to NOT sell rated R movies and rated M video games to individuals under the age of 17.

Problem solved. 
 
Back
Top