Yeesh. Damuri is obviously giving his impression of why a Liberal would object to Clinton. Pretending he is showing off his mind reading skills of all Liberals is so fucking silly.
I think the board’s conservatives should stop talking about what liberals think just as soon as the board’s liberals stop talking about what conservatives think.
Of course most of the board would then grind pretty much to a halt, but still…
Excellent !
a generic “They do it toooo!!!” whine is the best you can come up with?
Sounds like the two of us are pretty much in agreement about politicians in general and Hillary Clinton in particular.
I never said that money given by the NRF to Republicans wasn’t evidence of corruption.
So why is their giving money for Hillary worth noting?
I can’t say it was the best, but it was easily the most obvious. If it ain’t wrong for you to do it then it ain’t wrong for us to do it. N’est-ce pas?
For this approach to be honestly effective, you would include a link to a thread where what you claim actually happens. Just saying a stock “They do it tooo!!” in response without actually showing it just doesn’t cut it any more-sorry.
Whatever happened to leading by example?
Because Hillary is the topic of this thread.
Yeah, but there’s no meat to the accusations unless you can show tit-for-tat.
No, “Hillary Clinton’s lies and scandals” is the topic of this thread. How does her receiving $200k from an organization that has given 10X that amount to her opposition amount to a scandal or a lie?
They don’t need charges! This is 'Murica!
I didn’t find changing one’s mind the issue here. You know she changed her mind, I know it, most know it, but does Hillary know it? She could have easily clarified that her position has evolved, and only within the last few years has she changed her mind, and we’ll pretend she didn’t change her mind because now, politically, many more Americans are now in favor of it than at any other time. But according to Hillary, she states she didn’t change her mind. The video clips show in 2002 she opposed NY state same sex marriage. In 2004, she stated marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman. In 2010 she said she will not support same sex marriage, but civil unions. Only in 2013, she states, she supports lesbians and gay couples right to marry.
When Terry Gross of NPR (1:09 mark) asked clarification from Hillary that her position has changed on gay marriage or that she had changed her mind, Hillary said she was playing with her words. When Gross tried again to get through to her, Hillary said, you are trying to get me to say that I once was opposed, but now I’m for gay marriage and also doing it for political reasons, and that is flat wrong.
I’m a video game developer and (I like to think) a staunch 1st amendment supporter, and I don’t find that to be troublesome from a 1st amendment perspective at all. There’s a WORLD of difference between “speech X should be illegal” and “speech X should be illegal to children”. Pornography being illegal: bad. Pornography being not generally available to children? Perfectly fine.
Now, do violent video games fall on the worth-restricting-to-children side of the line? In sufficiently extreme cases, sure. In fact, I think it makes a lot more sense to restrict extreme violence along with graphic sex than it does to have a boobs=horrible murder=fine attitude, as seems to be common.
Now, did Clinton really believe that? And is it a sign of dishonesty for her to no longer be espousing that position? Meh. Whatever. She might well still think that that’s how it really should be, but also realize that it’s a politically hopeless fight so she has given up to focus on issues where she might actually make traction. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s just common sense.
Or it might have been 100% pure pandering. It’s hard for us to know as outside observers.
I’m an avid gamer and at the time, this was a deal breaker for me. Time hasn’t changed my view.
And SCOTUS did actually weigh in on the issue. They agreed with me.
I don’t think this is necessarily dishonest - she could have truly believed her opposition to violent video games, or she could have been pandering. Either way is bad and for supporters of the 1st amendment should be negative mark against her.
How is such a law different from the MPAA issuing R ratings for violence, and that being enforced?
MPAA doesn’t carry the force of law.
Behold, the danger of common sense. It makes perfect common sense to believe that flagrantly violent video games will encourage actual violence. Can’t help but cross your mind when you see the innocent joy of a growing boy that just disemboweled the enemy. Of course you think that. I’d be more surprised if you didn’t! But best I can tell, it just ain’t so.
I myself have logged more than fifty hours on Dark Souls and have yet to slaughter a fire-chucking slime mold. Maybe sixty hours. They have things on there that say how much time, but they don’t work. Also, the controllers are delicate and flimsy, and fall apart under the merest impact.
That’s a fair point.
I’m not saying I think Hillary was right to support that law, or that I would support it myself. But I think given the pre-existing precedent for treating children differently when it comes to the first amendment (pornography), it doesn’t register very high for me on the better-protect-the-first-amendment scale. It certainly doesn’t seem like the action of someone who is just itching to get in there and impose though crimes.
For instance, compare here quote to this from Donald Trump:
“We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way.”
That’s not really proposing anything specific, so it’s hard to claim that it’s meaningfully violating the first amendment. But the implications of the mind that would hold that position are far scarier to me than someone going overboard trying to protect children from violent imagery. (Using that as an example of a comment that I DO find disturbing from a first amendment perspective, not just trying to say that Trump is worse.)