https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homefront:_The_Revolution

I have no desire to play this FPS, but I find the premise... interesting

"resistance movement against the army of a Korean invasion in the city of Philadelphia."

The Koreans decide to invade America, really?? Was this written by a high schooler? I think a game about Canadians invading America would have been more believable...

ps Why would anyone want Philadelphia?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article … dian-Front

Yeah, I can't help but think that Canadians invading America (and winning) would be a VAST improvement for the entire planet.

Except for the Canadians of course.

Curious why you say that? Being facetious, or do you honestly not like America?

Both.

I don't "hate" America, because hating a country is stupid.
There's a shit-ton of things wrong with the US though, there's no denying that.

Is there any country that doesn't have a "shit-ton" of things wrong? That said, the US is a huge country both geographically, ethnically, and economically, so I can see why there is much more potential for "shit-ton" to happen. I would like to hear what are the major things you consider wrong with the USA? I'm not trying to argue or patronize you, I really am interested to hear what you have to say.

Sure, no country is perfect, but the list of things wrong with the USA is almost endless.

Weekly mass-shootings, non-existent health care, rampant racism in the police force, a government that is composed of one half incompetent evil cartoon villains, and another half that is just incompetent but at least means well. The fact that there only are TWO real choices when voting in itself is ridiculous, that's hardly a democracy. I could go on and on.

The US is fantastic at popular entertainment (TV shows, movies, video games, etc.) but the state of society is deplorable.

Hmmm, those really aren't the reasons I thought you were going to mention. If you're talking about homicides, you must really hate say Brazil, South Africa, and most of Latin America. It turns out across the world, the US is more less in the middle:

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/upl … tries.jpeg

I do agree the US really could use a stronger third party (we have third parties, they just get little coverage sadly). However, I have to disagree with your statement that the US is not a democracy. The US has basically almost always had a two-party system (different names of course) and the US is arguably the oldest modern democracy. Certainly much older than Japan or really any country you can mention. In fact, Russia is a country I would not consider a democracy even though it technically is supposed to be (but in reality it's a Putinocracy).

Now, there's no doubt there's racism in the US, and frankly the rest of the world. However, I  saying "rampant racism in the police force" is at best just a hyperbole. What does "rampant" mean? Do you really hate India? There's a country where you have "rampant" discrimination for some 160 MILLION people! Those people are part of the "untouchables" in the caste system which exists today in India despite being outlawed.

All that said, I agree the US has numerous problems, but so far I really remain unconvinced by most remarks you said. You may want to read this:

http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/hateamerica.html

In fact, I would encourage you to read it! It's quite an interesting study, titled " Why People Hate America A Summary of Anti-Americanism". It addresses many of your arguments, such as "non-existent health care" -which by the way is a falsehood (and I say that as someone that has to pay for my medical coverage)!

"The lack of an National Health Service in the USA is a shock to those who automatically assumed that such widespread aid was a part of basic Human rights. But... the USA does have provisions for people unable to pay for their own medical aid. Although it is more stringent, America simply operates differently..."

It's a long study, and certainly much of it is personal opinion. However, it is all backed with relevant facts, figures, and citations.

ps The article is somewhat old, and so obviously some things have changed, but for the most part I think much (although not all) of what the author says are true.

Don't forget the prison system!

(*They're trying to build a prison...*)

I would take issue with saying one side is "incompetent but means well"...more like one side pretends to have a moral high ground on matters while simply trying to siphon votes by making afraid of the "other side", and while promising to take more money from the rich when they can't even spend what they have competently. I have no issue saying the Republicans are weak on social issues and probably need to get with the times, but they are at least not trying to pretend the last 8 years have been filled with good policy decisions and economic growth. Neither side is dealing with anything close to reality.

But the general consensus within America is we're tired of two bit politicians being politicians. So you're seeing quite a few "outsiders" as potential presidential candidates, especially on the Republican side. In fact, the traditional "establishment" candidates are really getting dragged through the mud. Will be interesting to see if that lands Donald Trump in the White House or not. But watching Hillary Clinton try her damn hardest to be "cool" is cringeworthy TV.

I don't totally agree with the rest. There are not "weekly" mass shootings or "rampant racism" in the police force. The problem is something happens with individuals and both sides try to politicize it an endless degree. Both sides (and both the liberal media and conservative media) are horrendously guilty of this. Healthcare is broken and the endless squabbling over Obamacare did nothing to fix it or control costs, so I remain open to any DECENT ideas anyone has.

This.

And this.

I agree. I'm not going to stand here and say everything over here is "hunky dory" (sp?) but I really think some of your views are being influenced by our media, which I will freely and completely admit, sucks... so I can't blame anyone for thinking that.

"The media loves their latest tragic suicide. They exploit it, they package it and profit from the people who die."

Fair enough. I don't have a lot of love for the Democrats either, but at least they seem like the "least bad" choice to me.

The "weekly shootings" thing was hyperbole, obviously, but you have to admit there are far too many mass shootings on a very regular basis in the US, and the fact that there seems to be such a taboo on gun control (mostly from right-wingers) is ridiculous to people from other countries.
I've been to several countries that enforce VERY strict gun control, and mass shootings are near-to non-existent there. The majority of gun-related crimes are mafia-related, and they tend to weed each other out, so I don't really feel threatened by that.

Avatar, I'm sorry, but if you want to make the US look good by comparing it to countries like Brazil, South Africa, and Latin America, you're not making a very strong argument.
I'm not saying the US is the worst country in the world when it comes to these things, but it's way worse than, well, pretty much the rest of the First World (I hate myself for using this term btw), and a good portion of the Second World (but not Russia, obviously, lol), so comparing to Third World countries is not exactly convincing . And you have admit there's a VERY stark contrast with Canada, which is also interesting.

Anyway, I think the thread is starting to derail a bit, so perhaps this discussion can be moved elsewhere?

I prefer the "tough love" of the Republicans. though I am more libertarian. America is a spend-happy country with very little control (like a kid with too many hobbies and his parents' credit card) and working to bring down our national debt is a regular talking point for the GOP, but almost a taboo discussion for the Democrats. I'm also more a fan of creating jobs than increasing dependency on the government. While I have no love for the banks that were "too big to fail" and all of the people that should have gone to jail in 2008, the current economic environment is one where companies are looking to grow by means of cutting costs (and jobs, by extension).

The worst thing about America is accountability: There is none, especially if you are rich. And I don't blame the rest of the world for viewing us poorly because we deserve it.

Here's the thing with guns: If someone wants one, they will get one. There are millions of them out on the street. The popular Democratic talking point is increasing gun laws will decrease gun violence, but that turns out not to be the case because the states with the strongest gun laws tend to be the biggest places of gun violence (Illinois and Maryland being two prime examples). And when our president decides to politicize this talking point every time something happens, I want to throw something at my TV. It's like, "shut up and give the victims time to breathe and grieve." To me though, it is not a gun thing, but just a lot of mentally disturbed people within the country (which is to be expected, given our population count and varying geographical areas).

And yeah, feel free to move this discussion wherever.

And this is why I paid the University of Maryland $20,000 so I could drop out of their journalism program.

That's a good point.
It's probably too little too late to introduce stricter gun control, because guns are already too easily obtainable.

Even if some all-powerful force was able to remove all guns from the planet, violent crime would not cease.  Physically weaker people would have a more difficult time protecting themselves from stronger attackers, and women would be especially affected by this.  Guns aren't the problem, violent criminals are.

Quoted for truth.

But the thing that always gets me is how after there is a shooting so many people want to reform gun control laws when that won't really stop perpetrators.

For example, even if Adam Lanza (who did the Sandy Hook shooting) couldn't buy a firearm legally his mother had a dozen or so in the house... so even if he was denied sale he would had still had access. If tougher laws had been in place prior that probably wouldn't have changed this case.

This isn't to say that the laws don't need to be tweaked, but this being the main solution offered after these events is kind of shortsided when you research how some of these people obtained access to their firearms in the first place.

Still, if I could ask one small thing of gun owners in general (and I'm not trying to lump them all together as drunk, hillbilly rednecks even though that's easy to do where I live) can we cut it out with the straw-man arguments? I mean when I read that classic, brain-dead "cars kill people too" argument being made by some gun-lovers marching through my town in the local paper it just makes me fume.

I mean really... someone has to explain the difference between a gun and a car to you?

Yes, there's a big contrast with Canada. People have noted that for decades. There are theories why that is, but no clear answer. By the way, China has a much lower murder rate than the United States. So, would you like to live in China? I know I sure as hell would not! Also I'm not trying to make the USA look good. It has it's problems, but I've never been to any country that does not. Murder rates may be much lower in Europe, but I would not want to live in Europe myself. Just looking at the number of crimes per 1000 people, England has a much higher crime rate.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf … ates/Crime

Point is, just going by one statistic does not pain the whole picture. There are pluses and minuses to anywhere. By the way, given the option, the USA is still the #1 choice for most people to immigrate to. Why do you think that is?

Legitimate question: why is that? Why would you not want to live in China?
I've been there; it's a beautiful country, and it feels safe. There's just some hygiene issues (okay, a LOT of them).

Oh, I'd never want to live in England either. I never hear good things about England, not even from Englishmen.

If tougher laws had been in place prior, his mother wouldn't have had a dozen or so guns in the house, because NO, people having a dozen or so guns in the house is NOT normal by most countries' standards.
Guns being too readily available in the US is a major problem, but as Goldfish said, it's too late to do anything about that anymore.

Ugh, the old "we need guns to protect ourselves from guns" argument. Yeah, that's a totally healthy mindset.
This is how you start a downward spiral.
If all guns were to be removed from the planet, of course violent crime would not cease, but I can assure you it would make a HUGE difference in the number of lives lost each year.

Oh, I completely agree that you don't need a dozen guns in a single house... but you only need one or two to go on a murder spree so playing the number game is kind of moot.

You have not assured me.  And you warped the argument anyway.  A weaker person has a better chance of defending him/herself with a weapon, regardless of whether the attacker has a similar weapon.  In countries where guns are banned, suicides and homicides are carried out with other means.

But even if there HAD been stricter gun laws in the past and fewer available, it doesn't change the fact that if someone wanted one, they would get one. Especially if they planned on killing themselves afterwards. That argument is like saying kids can't get the latest Grand Theft Auto because it's rated "For Adults"...We all know better. And like it or not, there are spots in the US where legally owning a gun is totally justified for protection.

What raises a red flag to me are things like the left's softness on illegal immigration (read about "Kate's Law"...the problem wasn't the gun, it was the person and how San Francisco basically tells the government they're not going to comply with federal immigration rules) and a general lack of accountability (blaming the guns and not the people).

The latter is ultimately my problem with the left...guns provide them a convenient target, so they don't piss off their voter-base by saying violent people should face consequences. Usually people who come out and say this are then called racist and the attack is backed up with faulty statistics about guns and the black community, there's a counter-arguement, yadda, yadda, yadda, and the original point gets lost. That is how the left in this country works (by pretending to be the good guys) and why I refuse to support them. That said, I have zero doubt the Republicans are on the NRA's payroll either...

Of course the NRA backs the right-wing, because the right-wing supports second amendment rights much more reliably.  And leftist interests back the left-wing reliably.  "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" does not legitimately leave wiggle room for interpretation, but that doesn't stop busy-bodies from deciding the people don't need all their rights if they perceive it furthers their own social justice cause.  So they make asinine claims about comfort/safety/aesthetic features being "military features" and that civilians don't need them.

Don't get me wrong, I openly oppose blaming guns for all of society's violent ills, but I do think there should be a bar that decides whether or not a person SHOULD have one. But again, focusing on the people and not the instrument is something the left rarely wants to hear.

Anyone convicted of a violent crime should be barred from having guns.  But that's already among the established gun laws.  They should enforce those instead of dreaming up new ways to take away un-removable rights.

No, there are FAR more than hygienic issues. Honestly, I can't believe you would seriously criticize the USA and just blow of China. China has blatant human right violations that makes the USA seem like the Garden of Eden. China tortures prisoners, imprisons pro-Democracy or really any political rivals. It's not clear how many, but probably at least 10,000 people a year are sent without trial to "black jails". Do you think the death penalty is right or wrong? Well just so you know, China executes more than three times as many people as the rest of the WORLD combined!! Oh, and some sources say real figures are much higher and many are again people that the government does "not like". China has blatant animal abuse -heck there are NO laws against animal cruelty in China at all! Largest market for illegal wildlife trade -yup, China. China is so over-foresting, over-grazing, and over-using their water supplies that the Gobi desert is expanding at some 1400 square miles per year! China not only kills their animals in cruel ways, but they also don't care about food safety. China's economy is thriving, and they make tons of crap. Much of this crap is made at the expense of workers who are treated like crap. Corruption is rampant. As for the pollution, yes it's the worst in the world and not getting any better. China is buddy-buddy with North Korea and keeps it afloat.

Are those enough reasons for you? I could go on. And while I'll be the first to admit that the USA has numerous problems, the fact that you just rather blew off China I think speaks volumes.

I disagree with you. If an all-powerful force removed the guns, then it would also be powerful enough to end violent crime. Such a force would be capable of providing protection to physically weaker people. Of course, what such a force would "get" from providing that service is not something I know. What would we have to offer in trade for such a service?

"Kneel before my slingshot, Earthling!"

"Help, he's got a board with a nail in it!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZnOsbD0wUw

We get rid of guns, there's plenty of other objects to take their place.

Except that the left, FAR more so than the right, has been clamoring for better mental health care and better background/mental health checks for people who want to own guns for decades now.
Sorry, but your statement is just completely untrue.

I believe we have a cognitive distortion here...I was referring to personal accountability when the events happen (blaming the people, not the guns...or violent videogames...or heavy metal). So I am talking about the aftermath, not the beforemath/preventative phase (where I generally agree with common-sense laws, but not going far enough to twist the discussion into an entire separate healthcare debate, as the left so often does).

Hope that clarifies things.

Ah, I misunderstood that then. Thanks for clearing that up.

I'm still not quite sure if the left is considerably worse in that regard than the right though.
Is there an overwhelming majority of lefties who blame violent video games when mass shootings happen?

I thought this was more likely by those on the right... but I could be ill-informed because most of the instances I've seen were righties.

It's the in-thing to attack things you don't really understand... or else it's a slow news day.

I mean I'll never forget when Fox News said Mass Effect was an alien sex simulator...

That's exactly the impression I have, which is why I asked. Fox is by far the worst offender, and it's about as right-winged as you can get.

I think I've seen Hillary discuss the "dangers" of violent video games before, and Obama might have said some things until he realized he could score more points by actually speaking positively about video games, but I don't perceive this as a trend that is stronger among the left than the right.

I will say both are probably equally shitty towards videogames. But my first exposure to politics was Joseph Lieberman (a Democrat), listening to him bitch and whine about violent videogames. The fact that he could have become vice president of the US is a very scary thought (then on top of that, Al Gore's wife lead the charge against "violent" music in the 80's...given the slim margin Bush won in 2000 with, those two factors COULD have directly cost Gore the election) Then Jack Thompson came along (I don't think I need to explain him to anyone) and solidified the right wing stupidity. So it's really a group effort of old, out of touch idiots.

I regularly follow the news and the issue really doesn't come up that often anymore, it seems. Thank god.

Politically my issue is more on the grassroots level and with gender politics, where one side tries to paint "gamers" as an overly-conservative "boys club" that regularly discriminates against women while spewing "toxic masculinity" (I think you can guess what I'm referring to). Guess what...it ain't the people on the right that are pulling those games. But I think that damages videogaming far more than some windbag politician running for office. Frankly, for me, that sucked the air out of what little interest I had in modern gaming (combined with my general disdain with both the AAA and Indie industry at the moment). I don't expect people to support Gamergate (and I really can care less about it at this point), but I want nothing to do with an industry where I constantly have to refer to people's Twitter accounts to make sure aren't stupid enough to believe there's an ongoing industry-wide harassment campaign against women and minorities.

You're 100% correct on this one. Obama did say some things but he back peddled when he discovered the opposite opinion scored him more points.

However, back to the right vs left thing, I think the battle against games will always be ingrained with the right (at least to me) because of their connection to the NRA and when there's an incident involving a wacko with a gun it's the virtual ones we need to be aware of, right? The passing of this buck is pretty damn despicable if you ask me.