It's not a reckless comment, and the spin put on his statement is disheartening. Mr. Benson still posts the entire context of the statement, so credit for that. Taking the statement in context and at face value it isn't much more than a statement of support for Prime Minister Netanyahu's decision. Mr. Cain made it absolutely clear that it's within the realm of possibility, but not an automatic move on his part. As for Mr. Benson's assertion that his response should've been "The United States does not negotiate with terrorists.", in this context, that would've been spun as a slam at Israel. Mr. Cain's statement was entirely human, and was a gesture of sympathy to the extrememly difficult decision that Prime Minister Netanyahu made.

Given the fact that there was nothing tying the mother to the death of the daughter, and that the murder *itself* remains an open question, I'd say the jury system worked just fine - an unpopular defendant wasn't railroaded because she's a horrible person.

"This decision has left vulnerable the families whose parents lack the time or knowledge or resources to protect their own children" Given that the evil video game industry has developed, implemented, advertised, and enforced a voluntary ratings system that simplifies that level of violence into a set of simple letters, the only reason parents wouldn't have the 'time, knowlegde or resources' to determine what games their kids play is their own complete lack of effort or interest. The industry has bent over backwards to make the process of evaluation as simple as possible - it's not their fault parents buy *their* 8-year old the newest GTA. "Mass murders committed by teenage boys or young adults are often left unexplained by the media....

This is the third or fourth article on this, and no one is telling me where I can find those games that feature rape and torture. They don't exist. Also - "rape an Native American women" is a 30 year-old "adult" game called "Custer's Last Stand" which had horrible 8-bit graphics and made no sense (killing the 'unique effect' argument), "a game in which players engage in ‘ethnic cleansing’ and can choose to gun down African-Americans, Latinos, or Jews" is a game produced and distributed online by a white supremecy group, and is not sold, therefore exempt from the California law. Finally, the "school shooting" 'game' is actually a mod for Half-Life 2, made privately and distributed online, so again exempt from the California law. The...

American society prevents minors from attending movies with "excessive" violence, as well as from purchasing copies of those movies *and* games with similar violence. American *law* prohibits minors from buying alcohol and cigarettes. Enforcement on the movie issue is voluntary, and universal. Same with games. As for the "persecution" issue, SCOTUS didn't ban religion from schools, they merely banned *government* schools from coercing kids into one religion. Want a school that prays every day? Private schools aren't ruled by the Bill of Rights. Government, however, is. That includes government schools.

I was raised on the deleterious effects of violent video games. Those effects include: Understanding that evil only retreats when directly confronted, and never surrenders until it is broken by a stronger, more violent adversary. Believing that only individuals make a difference to the good, and that organizations are either neutral or evil. Understanding that passing of responsibility means that it doesn't get done. I'm a pretty evil guy, no?

That link makes no assertions of anything other than "violent thoughts", which is typical of most "studies" addressing video games. They make the common-sense evidenced statement that violent games inspire violent thoughts (Just like violent movies and violent comics and violent books), then they make the unjustified and unevidenced leap that the thoughts inspired from the violent game are fundamentally different from all other violent thoughts, in that they inspire action. Additionally, a voluntary rating/enforcement system is already in place. A state system would be redundant. I am of the opinion that the enforcement of any 18+ restriction was of secondary importance - the initial goal was to establish a government ratings agency...

If I recall correctly, Mexico only requests an ATF trace when they suspect that the weapons originated in the US. That 80% number is a reflection of Mexican detective work, not sampling. Related: If cartels are building real, honest-to-goodness battlewagons (effectively bunkers-on-wheels), I don't think they need American weapons that badly.

As much as I am loathe to indulge in conspiracy theories, SOMEONE in ATF or Justice must've realized how stupid the President was going to look if it ever got leaked that the US Gov't was directly responsible for the weapon flow he was condemning. Either he knew and wasn't planning on it leaking, or someone was fine with letting him fall flat on his face. =\

If it's right for Turek to be fired because he disapproves of homosexuality, than it's right for LGBTQIA people to be fired as well. If it's wrong for LGBTQIA people to be fired, than it's wrong for Turek to be fired. No one is claiming he condemned anyone in the workplace, worked Scripture into his presentations, or even that they saw him with a Bible. Someone complained after they Googled him, and he was fired after they outed him. As for your last line, corporations are groups of people working together for profit - those people shouldn't have to sacrifice their rights because they choose to work together as a team, instead of seperately.