Login:
Password:

Judge to Review New Rockstar Game 'Bully'

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

October 12, 2006, 6:03 PM

A Miami-Dade circuit court judge has ordered Take 2 Interactive -- whose Rockstar Games studio is responsible for the controversial, though successful, Grand Theft Auto series -- to make available a copy of Rockstar's unreleased game Bully, in order to determine whether it violates the standards set by the state's public nuisance laws. The game is scheduled for US release on Tuesday.

According to the gaming blog Destructoid, who has sent a reporter to cover the trial live, the judge will be seated with a Take 2 employee, presumably in chambers, to play any of randomly chosen missions from Bully.

If Judge Ronald Friedman feels, on the spot, that the game is offensive enough, he will grant prosecutor Jack Thompson's motion to stop the sale of the game in Florida. Thompson has filed suit specifically against retailers GameStop and Wal-Mart, where the game would premiere.

In the character-driven game, the player represents Jimmy Hopkins, a dejected young fellow who finds himself an under-achieving student at a miserable, bureaucracy-infested academy. Rockstar describes the main character as "working his way up the social ladder of this demented institution of supposed learning, standing up for what he thinks is right and taking on the liars, cheats and snobs who are the most popular members of the student body and faculty."

According to interpretations of previews of Bully, one of the options available to Jimmy for taking on the world involves vengeful violence. However, perhaps very cleverly, guns don't appear to play a role.

The Entertainment Software Ratings Board has issued a "T" for "teen" rating for Bully, which is far milder than for other games, especially from Rockstar. However, a court filing by Thompson earlier this week states the game's European version has been slapped with a "15" rating by the British Bureau of Film Certification, thus prohibiting its sale to minors 15 years of age and younger.

Assuming Take 2 complies with the judge's order, this will apparently also be Thompson's first opportunity to play the game, although in public remarks, he has previously referred to at least one of its missions as a "Columbine simulator." Most screenshots made available to date, however, depict fist-fighting and, as the title implies, the act of being bullied. The court filing adds that one screenshot includes the clever use of a toilet as a bullying device.

"The premise of Bully is that it is sometimes acceptable to deal with bullying by becoming the ultimate bully," reads Thompson's filing. "This was the dynamic at Columbine."

One of the weapons depicted in a screenshot included by Thompson is a "wrist rocket" - a wooden slingshot. "So deadly is this weapon," writes Thompson, "that it cannot be sold in most states, including Florida, to anyone under 18 years of age.

Yet, any kid can fashion his own slingshot in a matter of minutes from a wood, or a Y-shaped tree branch, along with scraps from an inner tube or latex surgical tubing available at Home Depot. Such a weapon, glamorized for use in Bully, can easily get through any security check at any school in America, given its non-metallic components."

To demonstrate his point, the Destructoid reporter noted, Thompson actually produced a wrist rocket from his own pocket in court yesterday. "It was a moment right out of Court TV, but an effective one," the reporter wrote. "If there was any chuckles that a slingshot could be a lethal weapon, they were silenced."

Florida statute states that, in order for something to be declared a public nuisance, it must be found to either annoy the community, be injurious to public health, or corrupt the public morals. Since the game has yet to be released, and may only be viewed from within the confines of the judge's chambers, advocates for the game's defense could argue that the game's qualification as a nuisance under Florida statute cannot be effectively determined until the public has been exposed to it.

Bully was originally announced by Rockstar back in May 2005, and has since been the subject of contention in every country where the concept was introduced, including throughout Europe, Australia, Canada, and now the US. In October of last year, a concerned parent started an online petition to compel Rockstar and Take2 to withdraw their release of the game, which was then scheduled for April 2006.

"We ask of you as an adult, as a member of this society, to stop the release of this game," Rochelle Sides' petition read. "If one child sees the violence portrayed in your game as an avenue to end his/her plight with bullying, will all of the money you have made be worth it? How much is a child's life worth to you?"

"Bully is a calculated effort to cash in on the tragic phenomenon of school bullying and thereby spawn more of it," concludes Jack Thompson's motion. In language about as confusing as the issue itself, he proceeds, "'Columbine' was just a taste of glimpse of what is coming and is increasingly already here."

Add a Comment (57 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By WRFan

posted Oct 16, 2006 - 6:45 AM

Rockstar games are definitely not for children. They are far too violent. And what the hell have freedom, the media and conservatism got to do with this ban? It's the duty of any democratic government to protect minors from offensive content. Think before you write

Score: 0

By Wyojake

posted Oct 14, 2006 - 2:25 PM

Freeedom of speech creativity and expression. Parents control your own damned children - take responsibility for making and raising them. Stay out of my pants.

Score: 0

By PSXp-ONE

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 11:09 PM

OMG!! not again...this crap.

Score: 0

By Desides

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 6:01 PM

Gamespot reports that the judge says there's nothing in the game that you wouldn't see on TV, and it's not banned.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6159812.html

Score: 0

By markrubi

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 5:29 PM

Florida can ban if they like. Rockstar is still going to make ton of cash off this one also. Free advertising like this is great. Hype it up everyone will want it and get it. I am sure those in Florida who want it but can't goto the local store will just buy it online. It boils down to a state being totally asinine about a video game. Times are changing and will continue. It's not grandma's world anymore.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 11:52 AM

I look forward to a ban in Florida. The Supreme Court would likely hear that case on appeal, and likely rule for creative freedoms. This would set a precedent that ends all of this stupidity.

Video games should have the same artistic and legal protections as movies. End of story.

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 11:59 AM

Not the supreme court that we have these days!

Score: 0

By Desides

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 6:01 PM

What exactly has the current Supreme Court done to make you believe they wouldn't allow the game? Because there are four conservatives on there? Please.

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Oct 14, 2006 - 7:58 PM

I should have been slightly clearer. What I meant was that it is not at all obvious that the current Supreme Court will support all the freedoms and liberties that we expect, any more than the current administration respects them.
In that context, I would not be surprised if they banned such games (and equivalent behavior) if they had such an opportunity. Remember our government just banned internet gambling!

Score: 0

By Red_Vader

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 11:49 AM

I think this game provides a wonderful semi-satirical look at how we view our society in general.

There have been numerous ways of keeping "your children safe" from this game. That is not what I want to discuss. I think the true shame is that no one is paying attention to the underlying issues at hand here, why has bullying become such a prevalent thing? I am more than willing to bet that it stems from the post-feminist environment that is found in our modern public schools. Most men are naturally aggressive and have a tendency for violence, yet what are the two things that men are told to control and never vent. Talking a problem out will not always solve it, there needs to be another way for young me to vent their frustrations. I personally am a big proponent of having all the students take boxing at the Jr. High and High school levels, but that is a topic for a different forum.

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 10:13 AM

Lets distract ourselves with very small issues and totally ignore the important issues like the government's gross missapropriation of funds and its abuse of power. Sounds good Mr bush.

Score: 0

By WeezulDK

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 8:43 AM

If the judge is smart he will throw the case out.

If he's an idiot he will ban the game, which then will be overturned by the federal Supreme Court on the grounds that it is 1st Amendment protected speech.

The US Government is nothing more than ultra-liberal and ultra-conservative wackjobs trying to impose their limited moral compass on the rest of society.

You can't spank your kids anymore because it's now considered abuse. You can't bawl them out, you can't discipline them aside from a "time out" or you're damaging their "fwagile wittle minds" as Cartman of South Park would put it.

When I was a kid, if someone brought a KNIFE to school (and I was born in 1970) it was a major problem. My parents wooped my butt whether I needed it or not and I grew up without going on a shooting rampage or becoming another Bundy, Gacy or Manson.

It's time we told Congress: Take your Time Out-Politically Correct-Hipocritical-Tree Hugging-Hippie-Ultra Conservative-If you're not a Christian God Fearing we hate you-Free Thinking Hating-Inolerant of other people's rights-Anti everybody who doesn't think like you-Whacko Jacko-1984 Newspeaking ideologies and shove em where the sun don't shine, and let us whip our kid's butt when they screw up and teach them how to be responsible and think for themselves. Let us practice our own religion without having it forced on us, decide for ourselves what we can do in our homes, determine our own destiny without your constant fear mongering and attempted classing of society, and stop trying to be the parents of our own children by dictating what YOU think we should be thinking. We're people, not sheeple.

There's more to this case than people realize. It will set a very dangerous precedent if this holds up.

This is about you losing your rights as a human being to raise your kids to be responsible, your right to free speech, your right to tolerance and self-responsibility.

Score: 0

By Desides

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 6:02 PM

"Time Out-Politically Correct-Hipocritical-Tree Hugging-Hippie-Ultra Conservative-If you're not a Christian God Fearing we hate you-Free Thinking Hating-Inolerant of other people's rights-Anti everybody who doesn't think like you-Whacko Jacko-1984 Newspeaking ideologies"

One, the federal Congress has nothing to do with this.

Two, how long did it take you to come up with an insult that inane?

Score: 0

By kazrath

edited Oct 13, 2006 - 11:28 AM

Thanks for your post WeezuIDK. This has to be one of the most accurate posts I've read in some time.

The problem is not games like "Bully". The problem is the lack of ability to set boundries for your children. The majority of tools needed to effectivly tach your children the difference between right & wrong and to show consequences of the wrong choices have been removed from us the parents.

As you stated about getting swatted as a child I to and many many americans in our age group and younger were swatted as children and yet for the most part we turned out just fine.

I recently took a holiday to Italy. In the month I was there I saw 1 child throwing a temper tantrum. It was an english speaking family with american accents. Go figure....

Score: 0

By mjd5139

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 1:57 AM

If the ESRB only rated this game 'T'. Then there is no way that the judge will find the game to be a nuisance to society, and all Thompson would have accomplished is giving Bully a lot of publicity.

Score: 0

By Desides

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 3:36 AM

Never say never.

Score: 0

By mjd5139

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 6:17 PM

I don't want to say 'I told you so...' so I'll let you fill in the blanks. I to** Y** s*.

Score: 0

By Desides

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 10:33 PM

Uh... buddy, my point was that the judiciary does what it wants when it wants, and we're beyond the point of expecting rationality. The right decision was made this time, but such correctness is not always forthcoming.

Score: 0

By kungfubeer

edited Oct 13, 2006 - 12:23 AM

The foundation of this case is freedom. This is all about government control. Whether you believe that this game should or should not be viewed by minors is irrelevant. The fact that the government is making laws prohibiting the sale of a game is a brutal attack on American Freedoms.

Now, as a parent, I would not allow my children to play this game if it is indeed not appropriate for their age. But that should be my choice, not the courts or the government. Frankly, I have no interest in this game for my home, whatsoever.

The government of the United States’ primary job is to protect its citizens and the rights of its citizens. What they are trying to do, once again, is to justify protection over rights.

Most of you were all over the International Telephone wiretapping and how it was somehow violating your rights, but this case is truly removing rights from your own home and your choices as a free adult.

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 4:48 PM

Thank you. I so needed to hear that from a parent.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 10:44 PM

I'll be wearing this shirt loudly and proudly this weekend:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/gaming/713e/

Score: 0

By plague201

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 3:48 PM

Is this shirt being sarcastic? Because if it is ill buy 1 too.

Score: 0

By Skizelli

edited Oct 12, 2006 - 10:09 PM

"Assuming Take 2 complies with the judge's order, this will apparently also be Thompson's first opportunity to play the game, although in public remarks, he has previously referred to at least one of its missions as a "Columbine simulator." "

Funny, considering Bully has no killing in it whatsoever from what I've read. This game and any games like it is only a nuisance to Jack Thompson, who has clearly lost his mind and will stop games like this at any cost. The only nuisance to society is Jack Thompson.

As for:

"We ask of you as an adult, as a member of this society, to stop the release of this game," Rochelle Sides' petition read. "If one child sees the violence portrayed in your game as an avenue to end his/her plight with bullying, will all of the money you have made be worth it? How much is a child's life worth to you?"

Do your jobs as parents. How many times do you see us saying this? Yet you don't listen. You'd rather put the blame on something else. Games like these are a release. I'd rather my kids do these things in a virtual world than in the real world. And if your child commits a crime simply based on something they've witnessed in a videogame, they were screwed up to begin with and you failed your job as a parent. The Columbine killers were going to shoot up the school regardless of if they had ever played Doom. They merely compared their rampage to a game they loved.

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 12:04 PM

I wish it was that simple.....while I totally object to the government being involved in such things and agree clearly that it's the role of the parent to deal with this, there's a problem because not ALL parents deal with it.

It's essentially the same problem where young kids start taking the schoolbus and all of a sudden they start swearing because they've heard other kids (whose parents don't care) do it.

So other than completely isolating your child from society, in practice, it's extremely difficult to prevent your child from being exposed to these things. And it doesn't matter how much you try to explain why the game is "bad" (say), kids are listening to their peers.

It doesn't matter how good are the parents. In summary, given that I also wouldn't want imposed censorship, I don't know how one solves this problem (and it IS a problem).

--->Do your jobs as parents. How many times do you see us saying this? Yet you don't listen. You'd rather put the blame on something else.

Score: 0

By Skizelli

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 3:51 PM

I understand there's a million ways to raise your kids. But ultimately these games end up in the home, where parents have jurisdiction and set the rules, unlike an R-rated film that can easily be seen by a minor in numerous ways. Videogames have a rating system in place, just like movies, so I don't understand what the problem is.

Score: 0

By kholdstare

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 9:28 PM

so is this how its going to be ever game take two makes now has to get screened by a court judge. man oh man the U.S. goverment is really messed up

Score: 0

By zhengx

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 9:02 PM

Since the game has yet to be released, and may only be viewed from within the confines of the judge's chambers, advocates for the game's defense could argue that the game's qualification as a nuisance under Florida statute cannot be effectively determined until the public has been exposed to it.

Score: 0

By DigitalSin

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 8:45 PM

Welcome to Communist America, comrades

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 8:08 PM

As lame as the game sounds... if "concerned parents" really wantto keep their children from being influenced by this game, i have a much cheaper solution.... don't let them have it.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Oct 13, 2006 - 1:14 AM

Hey Hey! And just Who do you think YOU are showing up here proposing that INDIVIDUALS assume responsibility!?

You are going to upset the entire 'victim mentality' mantra with talk like that!

Unfortunately, I think the answer falls in between those who rail that games have no impact and those who claim that the media is brainwashing the populace.

Unsupervised and without recourse to alternative activities, guidance and information (like..ahhh...an accurate understanding of the complexities of a non-sloganeered conception of History!), kids do tend to gravitate toward that which they are familiar.

And it is a shame that the market does not seem to support more intelligent alternatives to entertainment that present a greater level of reasoning and information upon which the grand entertainment scenarios can be portrayed rather then the simplistic, absurd, cartoon stereotypes that dominate the media and the discussion sites including this one!

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 9:51 PM

Just to be clear, i am not saying media has zero impact, but if you look at the numbers of kids exposed to sex and violence who are not sociopaths compared to those are, i think the corralation would be that the effect are at best miniscule and are more likely due to other factors (liek maybe parents who fail to nuture them and let them be exposed to things they are not menatlly ready for?)

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Oct 13, 2006 - 1:15 AM

I tend to agree with you and to side with the view that says that it is the individual's responsibility to become informed and to make responsible choices.

But to be realistic and to balance the view a bit, many, as you mention, of those who are at greatest risk are being raised in environments where the concept of personal responsibility, both on their part as parents (what parents?) and as expected of the children, are foreign at best.

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 4:51 PM

Very true, those cases do exist, but i think governemnt tiem and money woudl be better spent on trying to get those chrildren into better environments than trying to legislate a silly video game.

Score: 0

By Ramhound

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 7:58 PM

Games are NOT behind the issues in the world.

If video Games are the reason why kids shoot other kids, then why are young muslim children doing it, I am sure they don't have a $400+ USD console to play Bully on.

If we cannot watch what your kids are playing and not allow our kids to play these types of these games ( if they have that sort of personality that they can be influenced ) then we has a nation will fail as parents.

I grew up on Violent video games, I have never attacked somebody in over 18 years of playing violent video games.

Galway they already made a Terrorist game, its called "Bad Day LA", granted its a horrible game that where the story makes no sense, but you shoot terrorist.

Score: 0

By mshulman

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 8:13 PM

While I do agree that games are not responsible for peoples actions, they can often give people ideas.

I don't think we should stop games like this - its up to parents to parent their kids, but I do think it is a bit ridiculous how many games are being made like this.

You can actually still have violence in games and not send such ridiculous messages.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 8:38 PM

While I do agree that games are not responsible for peoples actions, they can often give people ideas.

You wouldn't have even considered saying something like that about books, but it would be more true.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Oct 13, 2006 - 1:06 AM

Funny, I don't hear too many here proposing banning the info-tainment/gossip/speculation about the speculation regarding the earlier speculation nonsense that that passes for news, or the various TV shows that posit all of the same (lack of) values...

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Oct 13, 2006 - 3:23 PM

That's because the media is made up of the same folks who make that stuff. Why the heck would any news organization report any "stories" about how unreliable news is? Or HollyWood making a movie criticising the way HollyWood makes movies?

Video games can be attacked by the media now, but once the video games get more and more advertising and coorporate sponsership, trust me, you will not hear of anybody criticising them either.

(for those who have difficulty understanding, let me spell it out: We only hear criticisms from the media/newspaper/internet, so they obviously will never ever publish anything involving complaints about them!!!)

Score: 0

By skimore

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 7:54 PM

Nothing wrong with Killing someone if there are a Terrorist. but an average person on a street in the USA.. NO WAY!!

So can this be applied to Movies, Music and print????? Or will they single out Video games. Come on take 2 you need to give more campain money!!! Buy the congress persons ear!!

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 8:37 PM

Nothing wrong with Killing someone if there are a Terrorist. but an average person on a street in the USA.

Not a good comparison, a decent percentage of people would drop an obvious (read, wielding an AK47) terrorist without hesitation should the need arise. I would too, just like any other threat to my life. "Average person on the street in the USA" is usually more of a threat to themselves than anyone else.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 9:24 PM

"people would drop an obvious (read, wielding an AK47) terrorist without hesitation"

Where do you get this cartoon image?
How many of the terrorists involved with 9.11, Lisbon, London, the various Embassy bombings or Bali walked around carrying AK47s?

Gee, do you mean they looked like the "Average person on the street"?

Put away the cartoon stereotypes! Those are more dangerous then yo7ur perceived threats.

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Oct 13, 2006 - 1:14 PM

I realized I sounded a little affected by bias, I wasn't as I didn't mean the 'wielding an AK47' reference as a realistic occurence, just as an obvious undoubtable threat. You know, trying to point out the large difference between a "terrorist" and an "average person on the street" that the prior poster was talking about.

Score: 0

By zridling

edited Oct 12, 2006 - 7:58 PM

Every other republican-controlled state is passing these silly laws, Oklahoma is the latest — Can you say Orwellian? — in order to look good before their coming elections. And Ronald Friedman is an old Reagan appointee, back when some of the worst judges in history were confirmed (look no further than Scalia). They let their congressmen harass and accost the kids in the republican congress and then protect each other for six years, allowing it to continue. But by Jove, conservatives will make up for it by harassing the videogame makers!

Note they don't do the same for music, or congressional child predators. Kinda funny the way it's all about the dollars. Leave them kids alone!

Score: 0

By Desides

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 8:59 PM

Yep, blame the Republicans, nevermind that the biggest crusaders of video game regulation are Democrats. The "Orwellian" laws you describe simply state that M-rated games should not be sold to minors. What exactly is objectionable about that, given all of the other legal screw-ups you could choose to complain about instead?

After reading your post, I'm pretty sure you don't have a clue what a conservative is, other than "someone to your immediate political right."

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 9:56 PM

probably the most prominent Democrat who is anti-video games is Hillary. To me, she's making certain policies to pander to the right. It isn't entirely a Republican problem. I see it as more of an issue with ultra-right-wing
-social-conservative-nutjobs, who unfortuantely seem to have a way bigger voice in the Republican party than i would prefer.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 1:00 PM

It may be a "Republican" thing, it may not--but it is certainly not a Conservative thing. Pushing any laws country-wide that restrict previous "rights" (or wrongs) is usually what liberals want. Remember--conservatives generally want to "conserve" the existing laws/acts/etc., and liberals/left wingers generally want more control by the government.

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Oct 14, 2006 - 8:01 PM

I see --- so that's why conservatives are pro-choice [sic] and democrats are pro-life [sic]?

--->Remember--conservatives generally want to "conserve" the existing laws/acts/etc., and liberals/left wingers generally want more control by the government.

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 4:55 PM

that is the coservative "ideal," but no longer the conservative reality. not as long as the ultra-right-social-conservative-whack-jobs are so powerful in the party. When i was a kid i was told that the conservative values were smaller/efficient governemnt and more personal freedoms... i liked that idea. I dont' see that right now from the main stream conservatives... start with the president... i've been sayign for years he's not "really" a conservative.

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Oct 13, 2006 - 1:19 PM

I know what you are trying to say, but common usage of conservative and liberal has changed such that I think you should replace "generally" with "historically" or "traditionally". As the "conservative" right increases its attempts to force the beliefs of its members on the rest of the country, and the "liberal" left tries to preserve the freedoms we have to live our lives without unwarranted government oversight.

Score: 0

By Desides

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 6:03 PM

"As the "conservative" right increases its attempts to force the beliefs of its members on the rest of the country, and the "liberal" left tries to preserve the freedoms we have to live our lives without unwarranted government oversight."

That's one of the most inaccurate assessments of politics I have EVER seen.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Oct 13, 2006 - 3:14 PM

"As the "conservative" right increases its attempts to force the beliefs of its members on the rest of the country, and the "liberal" left tries to preserve the freedoms we have to live our lives without unwarranted government oversight."

AHH, you mean Republicans and Democrats. Also you forget that many republicans would tell you they only seek to 'undo' the government control that the democrats have 'done'. They would argue they are still for less federal government control. I disagree personally--but that's what they'd tell you is all I'm saying.

Just because there are those that misuse the terms "Conservative" and "Liberal" does not mean their meaning has changed. Unfortunately, the world today thinks differently from that--so now every word can mean whatever the hell you want it too and still be "correct". It is a sad thing.

The terms 'Conservative' and 'Liberal' actually refer more towards the "way or process of working/thinking" while the words "Republican" and "Democrat" refers to two ever-changing people groups.

Score: 0

By Desides

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 3:42 AM

"probably the most prominent Democrat who is anti-video games is Hillary."

And that was just one statement on her part in an attempt to appear socially responsible (rather than "pander to the right." No one on the right buys anything Hillary says.) In terms of actions taken, I'd rank Joe Lieberman and Leland Yee above her.

"ultra-right-wing-social-conservative-nutjobs"

I don't know what's better, the absurdity of labeling conservatives as nutjobs (try seriously researching what conservatism is), or the fact that you're replying to one of those people you hate so much.

Score: 0

By ryusen

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 4:58 PM

that's where you are mistaken... i am NOT labeling conservatives with that tag... i am saying that are those who i see as fitting that label mired in with the conservatives and they give the "real" conservatives a bad name. the person i replied to did not seem like the infection which i hate about conservative politics.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 9:26 PM

It fascinating how the liberals who favor even more power for the central and socialist government will rail against the "Orwellian" tendencies of the right.

Score: 0

By spef

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 4:39 AM

Wouldn't it be easier to have some more political parties where people would actually vote for? The haggle between the republicans and democrats is beginning to get boring.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Oct 13, 2006 - 3:16 PM

Boring isn't the word I would use. "Uncivilized" is my word of choice :)

Score: 0

By Galway

posted Oct 12, 2006 - 7:06 PM

Rockstar Games really learned from there last games and I can see they are making a massive effort to turned around there image and favour with the authorities.

what next ...

Terrorist - The Game .
Serial killer - The new york menace ..
Arsonists online ...

Should do well

Score: 0