Federal GTA Lawsuit

Suit seeks to ban sales of popular video game (thanks Mike Martinez): "A lawsuit by Haitian groups that asks for the top-selling video game 'Grand Theft Auto: Vice City' to be removed from store shelves will be decided in federal court. " Also, Give Back Take Two (thanks Hump and Steve Nutley) has complaints from The New York Post about GTA, apparently making the case for how depicting violence in a game is worse than molestation: "This is 10,000 times worse than the worst thing anybody thinks Michael Jackson ever did to a little boy."
View : : :
158.
 
Re: Nukes
Jan 8, 2004, 19:22
Re: Nukes Jan 8, 2004, 19:22
Jan 8, 2004, 19:22
 
It's a sign of a civilised society that the richest members help out those that are poor. The idea that all it takes in America to get rich is hard work is just fucking nonsense, you need luck. Example: a guy working hard as he can for Boeing. September 11th, fall in demand in his industry, massive layoffs, he gets unlucky. Out of his hands, he's on the dole.
That could happen to you Inkswitch. God forbid, but your business could go down the pan, you could get fired, you could just be too ill to work. And if that ever happens (as it has to many people) then you'll be damn glad you live in a country that is civilised enough to recognise that sometimes people need help.
Yes there are problems of benefit fraudsters. When you provide something for free, people over-use it - another well known economic problem (google for "free rider problem" if youre interested.) But the principles behind benefits are quite simply what I said above - sometimes people need help.
What do I call a health service? A way of ensuring that when those who can't afford healthcare get it. It's that simple. Now think about what it really means to take that away. And try to look beyond your own pocket. If you can't give up what you have to in taxes to provide for those less fortunate without bitching about it, you really don't deserve to live in a country as full of opportunity as America.
Incidentally, you brought up FDR's New Deal in the 30's. I'm not sure how much you know of economic history, but the reason the great crash ever came about was because of inadequate safeguards against economic growth under the government in the 20s. Believe it or not there is such a thing as too much growth - too low taxes, too few regulations on banks and private capital and investment. It brought huge growth, I admit. But huge suffering afterwards. That being said, the overall effect of the New Deal is questionable - further evidence that taxes and spending do not have an huge effect on the economy.
With respect for your political opinions, (and I am determined not to form an opinion as far as Republics vs Democrats), at least by listening to Joe and Moog I am reassured that America isn't full of selfish assholes.

Avatar 18712
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
7.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
 bs
8.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
  Re: bs
17.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
   Re: bs
30.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
    Re: bs
86.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
   Re: bs
88.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
    Re: bs
11.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
12.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
15.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
18.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
20.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
21.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
22.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
    No subject
33.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
14.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
  Re: bs
16.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
19.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
24.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
35.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
2.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
3.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
5.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
6.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
4.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
9.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
10.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
13.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
23.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
27.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
34.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
36.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
25.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
28.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
29.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
31.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
32.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
26.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
37.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
39.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
 duh
38.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
40.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
41.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
42.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
49.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
71.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
79.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
80.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
43.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
44.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
68.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
45.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
46.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
47.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
53.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
54.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
58.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
61.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
55.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
48.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
50.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
51.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
56.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
59.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
57.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
60.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
62.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
63.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
66.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
73.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
82.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
89.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
102.
Jan 3, 2004Jan 3 2004
103.
Jan 3, 2004Jan 3 2004
      Re: Moog Operator
104.
Jan 3, 2004Jan 3 2004
      Re: Moog Operator
106.
Jan 3, 2004Jan 3 2004
       Re: Moog Operator
115.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
        Re: Moog Operator
107.
Jan 3, 2004Jan 3 2004
       Re: Moog Operator
121.
Jan 6, 2004Jan 6 2004
       Re: Moog Operator
122.
Jan 6, 2004Jan 6 2004
        Re: Moog Operator
123.
Jan 6, 2004Jan 6 2004
         Re: Moog Operator
125.
Jan 6, 2004Jan 6 2004
          Re: Moog Operator
126.
Jan 6, 2004Jan 6 2004
           Re: Moog Operator
127.
Jan 6, 2004Jan 6 2004
            Re: Moog Operator
128.
Jan 7, 2004Jan 7 2004
           No subject
129.
Jan 7, 2004Jan 7 2004
            Re: No subject
130.
Jan 7, 2004Jan 7 2004
             Re: No subject
131.
Jan 7, 2004Jan 7 2004
              Nukes
134.
Jan 7, 2004Jan 7 2004
               Re: Nukes
136.
Jan 7, 2004Jan 7 2004
                Re: Nukes
137.
Jan 7, 2004Jan 7 2004
                 Re: Nukes
138.
Jan 7, 2004Jan 7 2004
                 Re: Nukes
139.
Jan 7, 2004Jan 7 2004
                 Re: Nukes
140.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                  Re: Nukes
141.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                   Re: Nukes
144.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                    Re: Nukes
146.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                     Re: Nukes
147.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                     Re: Nukes
148.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                      Re: Nukes
149.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                       Re: Nukes
150.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                      Re: Nukes
151.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                       Re: Nukes
152.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                        Re: Nukes
154.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                         Re: Nukes
155.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                          Re: Nukes
156.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                           Re: Nukes
153.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                       Re: Nukes
157.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                        Re: Nukes
 158.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                         Re: Nukes
159.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                          Re: Nukes
160.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                           Re: Nukes
162.
Jan 9, 2004Jan 9 2004
                         Re: Nukes
142.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                   Re: Nukes
143.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                  Re: Nukes
145.
Jan 8, 2004Jan 8 2004
                   Re: Nukes
161.
Jan 9, 2004Jan 9 2004
                    Re: Nukes
132.
Jan 7, 2004Jan 7 2004
           Re: Moog Operator
133.
Jan 7, 2004Jan 7 2004
            Re: Moog Operator
135.
Jan 7, 2004Jan 7 2004
             Re: Moog Operator
124.
Jan 6, 2004Jan 6 2004
       Re: Moog Operator
90.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
64.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
65.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
67.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
69.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
85.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
70.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
72.
Jan 1, 2004Jan 1 2004
84.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
101.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
74.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
75.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
76.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
78.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
98.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
81.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
77.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
83.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
87.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
91.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
92.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
93.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
94.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
95.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
97.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
99.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
110.
Jan 4, 2004Jan 4 2004
   Re: My 2c
112.
Jan 4, 2004Jan 4 2004
    Re: My 2c
113.
Jan 4, 2004Jan 4 2004
     Re: My 2c
116.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
    Re: My 2c
117.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
     Re: My 2c
96.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
100.
Jan 2, 2004Jan 2 2004
105.
Jan 3, 2004Jan 3 2004
108.
Jan 4, 2004Jan 4 2004
109.
Jan 4, 2004Jan 4 2004
111.
Jan 4, 2004Jan 4 2004
114.
Jan 4, 2004Jan 4 2004
118.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
119.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004
120.
Jan 5, 2004Jan 5 2004