And the band fails on: New law seeks to put warning labels on games

Somehow, I knew a Democrat from the People's Repuiblic of California had to be involved with this bill.

It's fucking moronic bills like this that make me glad I'm a Libertarian.

California can't sink into the ocean, fast enough, as far as I'm concerned.

Video games don't make me want to kill people...

Stupid useless laws regarding video games make me want to kill people

It's this simple. Do for videogames what you do for movies. No more, no less.

You can't see an R movie if you aren't 17 (in the US) so you shouldn't be allowed to buy a M game unless you are 17. If your parent wants to buy it for you, fine, they are doing the parenting.

Why is this so difficult? You can blow someones head off in a game and you can replay the scene from full metal jacket until the cows come home. At the end of the day, violence is violence. Shouldn't the people making laws, etc, spend their time doing something productive?

My apologies, Sora, 20 of the last 28 years have been governed by Republican presidents, not 24. Huge mistake on my part, I hope you'll forgive my error. On the other hand, those eight were by most measures the best ones of the lot.

And again Douche, those are two banks tied to Democrats - points which I granted you in my first post. And I'm sorry, but the Democrats did not have a majority in Congress between 1995 and 2007. It won't take long to look that up. So which of those things did the Democratic congress vote for again?

"The man has backed off pulling out of Iraq 'immediately'." - please cite an instance where Obama said immediately and clarified that he meant something quicker than a year or two, which he repeated during the campaign. Furthermore he had no control over the status of forces agreement negotiated by the Bush administration and the Iraqi's. If that's to be the timetable for withdrawal, so be it. Quibbling over the precise timing of withdrawal is really pathetic. A broken promise would be failure to withdraw combat troops.

"He has backed off closing Gitmo." I'm sorry, what?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/politics/13gitmo.html

"President-elect Barack Obama plans to issue an executive order on his first full day in office directing the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba"

"May take a year to close it" does not equal "backing off".

"He voted for FISA" Yep. Pity that.

"will keep the 'Constitution-shredding' rules that kept our country safe for seven years firmly in place." Frankly you can't possibly source that claim, and we'll have to wait and see. The fact is that Holder has clearly defined waterboarding as torture in his confirmation hearings, so now, the biggest failing Obama's administration could commit on this topic is not prosecuting Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for war crimes. If they don't I will be disappointed.

"He isn't repealing the Bush tax cuts." Again, we'll have to wait and see when the budget is announced. Until then, you are speculating.

"And he has had more scandals during his TRANSITION PHASE than any administration in history." You've got to be kidding me xD
What constitutes a scandal now? The ruffled feathers over the Panetta thing? Richardson withdrawing over a non-suspicious but distracting investigation? This is compared to, what? Shooting people in the face? Torturing people? Politically-motivated hiring policies at the Justice Department? Absolutely laughable.

Lastly, I did not vote for him, I'm not an American.

Oh right, I understand you now. They helped vote for the budgets, etc. Point taken. I can't defend them for it. They aren't the kind of Democrats I recognise, much like I wouldn't feel it just or accurate to compare Lincoln to modern, scumbag Republicans. Enjoy the total eclipse of your relevance, asshat.