Rush Limbaugh Defends Video Game Free Speech

[punkrocker27]

But government having more power isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as that power is used for good.

Handing more control over one's institutions to the state is nothing more than a loss of liberty. Couching in terms like 'good' or ?responsibility? or 'welfare' while making it sound more palatable does not negate the loss of freedom entailed.

 

[Aulleas123]

In this thread: About three people who understand current politics and everyone else living under a rock.

Here's a hint to help those with modern US politics (modern being in the last 100 years, but primarily in the last 20 years):

1. Democrat has never meant 'for rights'. Examples: FCC. Prohibition. Arguable: Health care bill.

2. Republican has never meant 'for rights'. Examples: Patriot act.

3. Modern Democrats are uber-liberal. There are a plethora of in-context quotes and books (FROM THEM) that espouse them for being communist sympathizers.

4. Modern Republicans are uber-liberal-lite. There are a plethora of in-context quotes and books (FROM THEM) that espouse them for being communist sympathizers-lite. There's a reason the tea party exists and if you think it's anything other than the Republicans no longer holding the values that they held 20 years ago... you're what Lenin would call a 'useful idiot'.

For those of you who are "YAY COMMUNISM", that's real cool. All those video games you enjoy and love? That's pure capitalism.

Rush Limbaugh is pro-capitalism and pro-constitution. This being a shock to anybody shows both a lack of understanding of the stances that Rush Limbaugh holds but also a lack of understanding of modern politics.

This. Especially the point about the Communism, Capitalism, and video games.

 

[Paksenarrion]

Think about it: before this whole video game law debacle, has he ever spoken out about how violent video games corrupt youth?

He is a console gamer, a quiet player. He lurks throughout multiplayer gaming communities without a mike and with an alias. He may not be pundit we want him to be, but he is the pundit we deserve. He is our silent guardian. Our dark knight.

*roll credits*

 

[fulano]

I can't say I like the guy, but hot damn, I can't hate him anymore.

Not to hate on you, but he supported videogames once and that's all you really needed to let bygones be bygones? Seriously?

The world is bigger than videogames.

 

[Netrigan]

What did ou expect? Liberals are the ones that like to have the government tell you how to live your life, not republicans.

I lol'd. I suppose the Patriot Act was enacted to give us MORE freedom, then? Clearly tapping everyone's phone was just an innocent prank.

"The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties."

"In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns."

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

Exactly. The Patriot Act was bullshit, and Democrats are spineless, so they weren't about to stand up against something introduced by Republicans.

Point is that neither party is looking to give you more freedoms or breathing room unless it suits their needs.

There's certain issues that, if they come to public attention, are potential political suicide to oppose. If you vote against the Patriot Act, then you're not for protecting Americans. If you voted against the California video game bill, then you're for kids playing violent video games. It's populist politics. If a political issue is reduced to a simple, clear moral choice, politicians will be spineless and vote with what the people demand... even if they know it's wrong.

Until recently, indoor prostitution was legal here in Rhode Island. This stems from some court case from several years back. No one really cared enough to re-write the prostitution laws to make it illegal again, so for many years it was perfectly legal. Eventually an underage girl was arrested who was working (legally) as a stripper and suddenly the legal status of prostitution became a huge issue, as strippers and prostitution so often go together. The law re-criminalizing prostitution was passed with no opposition, because what politician in his/her right mind wants to be seen as in favor of underage prostitution, because that's what every attack ad would be.

And you know these guys knew about the legal status of prostitution. Until it became a public issue, they didn't care. Once it became one, they had no choice but to support the "moral" stand demanded by the public.

 

[cheese_wizington]

I can't say I like the guy, but hot damn, I can't hate him anymore.

Not to hate on you, but he supported videogames once and that's all you really needed to let bygones be bygones? Seriously?

The world is bigger than videogames.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

 

[astrav1]

Maybe it's his way of making sure people think it's bad since he knows everyone hates him.

 

[Cocamaster]

Unfortunately you are incorrect about the original content.

No, I'm not.

Though "citizenship" wasn't defined until the 14th amendment, the original constitution ordered federal government to define a "uniform rule of naturalization" for the people of the Unites States which determined what it meant to be an American, which they did in 1802, only 15 years after the Constitution was signed and 11 after the 1st amendment, and contained the following:

1. He shall declare on oath or affirmation, in some competent court, at least three years before his admission, that it was, bonafide, his intention to renounce for ever all allegiance to any sovereign or state of which he was a subject.

2. He shall swear or affirm that he will support the Constitution of the United States.

3. He shall satisfy the court that he has resided within the United States at least five years, and within the State or Territory where such court is held at least one year, before he can be admitted. It must further appear to the satisfaction of the court that he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

4. He shall renounce every title of nobility held by him. Subsequent laws modified this act in the following important particulars:

Before this, citizenship was defined by State law, and all citizens of the American colonies during the Declaration of Independence and war were considered Americans.

So, the Constitution applied only to those who followed these rules. These were the "citizenship" of the 1800's. Obviously the rules changed, but the intent did not: the U.S. Constitution applies to Americans only.

Sorry Liveralviewer...

 

[Thaius]

Wow, I would not have expected that from him. That's really cool, actually. When one of the most outspoken, divisive figures in conservatism calls people out on this, something most conservatives stand behind, you know there's something to it.

 

[Jake the Snake]

Rush and I on the same page for once politically? Hm, I guess hell froze over sooner than I expected.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Well Im confused.

He could lead people to our side, but why.
If Im not mistaken, isn't he pro- family values, tradition, and what not. You know the same thing the people who are agianst us be are for

 

[wynnsora]

I- wha- DOES NOT COMPUTE!!

 

[teebeeohh]

he doen't actually support video games, he just keeps doing what he is always doing, if the government tried to ban bow-ties on liberal political analyst he would be against that

 

[ultimateownage]

whether or not we're responsible for global warming, the kind of lightbulb we have to have.

Then I realised that this guy was saying the right things, but for all the wrong reasons. If telling us this genuinly helps the planet, then in my opinion the governments SHOULD be able to restrict it. If it's trivial and is entirely pointless, then they should have no say. If it only affects you, then their say should only reach to informing you of the dangers. If it affects the planet as a whole, then that's a point where they can tell you that you're being an inconsiderate tosser and stop you from doing it.

 

[lacktheknack]

What did ou expect? Liberals are the ones that like to have the government tell you how to live your life, not republicans.

Yeah that whole CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE and that IF YOU ARE NOT WITH US YOU ARE WITH THE TERRORISTS bit were soooooooooooooooooo part of the liberal agenda.

The more shameless Liberals wanted everyone to believe they actually said this, yes.

So you're saying George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Fox News are actually liberal?
And JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR: I KNOW Cheney doesn't support the amendment thing.

Find me anything that says (WITH CONTEXT) anything about "non-conservatives are terrorists", and I'll concede. Until then, I'm sure you're using hyperbole.

<youtube=cpPABLW6F_A>
President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001. I don't blame him for saying it at that particular time, but later the administration kept the same mindset when it came to the invasion of Iraq. And WHO was pressing for the war in Iraq?

Context, it is important. EVERYONE agreed with him here, when an unknown group bombed American soil for an unknown reason. Now that we have more knowledge, this quote is irrelevant.

 

[fulano]

I can't say I like the guy, but hot damn, I can't hate him anymore.

Not to hate on you, but he supported videogames once and that's all you really needed to let bygones be bygones? Seriously?

The world is bigger than videogames.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Setereotype.

Anyways, it's your life. Have a good one.

 

[NewYork_Comedian]

Until ive read one of his books, or listened to his show for a fair amount of time, i cant really comment on what hes like and his take on D/R.

But i do agree that what he said right then though, and am glad that people that are not into games support defending it as well.

 

[dalek sec]

I can't say I like the guy, but hot damn, I can't hate him anymore.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about it all. While I think if we ever met we might not agree on much but I thank him for standing with us against this horrible law so thank you Mr. Limbaugh.

 

[punkrocker27]

But government having more power isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as that power is used for good.

Handing more control over one's institutions to the state is nothing more than a loss of liberty. Couching in terms like 'good' or ?responsibility? or 'welfare' while making it sound more palatable does not negate the loss of freedom entailed.

That's where you're wrong. As long as government is used as our founding fathers meant it to be, it can be a force for freedom while growing to help those in need. "By the people, for the people."

Yeah well somewhere down the line it grew too big. Look at France. Sarkozy tries to fix their unsustainable pension and ends up causing the whole nation to shut down in response. Hell look at our own government. Billion dollar deficits? Trillion dollar debt? The founding fathers never in their wildest foresaw a country this successful, let alone with these kinds of problems. How many laws have been passed since 1776? How many amendments to that original Constitution/Bill of Rights? At this rate how many more years will it take to reach a society reminiscent of Georgy-boy Orwell's depiction of a future where the government expedites lawmaking that is not even fully considered before being enacted (Patriot Act, Bush's $700 billion Bailouts, Healthcare Reform.)

Unfortunately the system has long since become corrupt beyond recognition, and the government alienates itself from the common man on a daily basis through legalese and double-speak. The media doesn't help things, either.

Then go join the Tea Party 'cause for right now that's all you've got instead.

 

[Cocamaster]

Exactly. The Patriot Act was bullshit, and Democrats are spineless, so they weren't about to stand up against something introduced by Republicans.

The PATRIOT Act was based on the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act signed by Bill Clinton in 1996, a law that he himself critizised for being TOO WEAK, calling it a "watered-down version of the White House's proposal" and blaming the Republicans, the NRA and the ACLU for it.

Then, 5 years later, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would vote for it.

Democrats, Republicans... what's really the difference?