Wie Sega Deutschland vor wenigen Minuten bekannt gab, werden weder House of the Dead: Overkill noch MadWorld für die Wii in Deutschland erscheinen. Wir bedauern diese Entscheidung zutiefst, anhand der bisher gezeigten Bilder wäre eine USK-Freigabe offensichtlich aber sehr unwahrscheinlich gewesen.

Rough Translation: Sega announced a few minutes ago, that neither House of the Dead: Overkill nor MadWorld will be released for Wii in Germany.

Source: http://www.nintendo-online.de/news.php?id=2312

I hope that they will release it in austria, than I can import it for my Wii ...

 You're really skewing modern western (say, American) national security hardcore to the ideologies of past dictators when in reality, there's a major difference.  You sound like a Socialist radical because you are clearly against Nationalism.  In reality, though, the two are not all that different.  Both are freedom-restrictors.  I never actually mentioned anyting about how you feel about income taxes, hence, I didn't bold it in my original response.  Frankly, I think income taxes are fine for now, but some change must be made.  Here's a thought, vote for the hardcore leftists and that change means raising the hell out of them so they can transform the government into a powerful socialist empire that becomes all-controlling.

I'm talking about the strength of the individual and the danger of group thinking.  How is that socialist?  Just because I'm not a Nationalist doesn't mean I'm a Socialist.  Both have their moderates and extremists.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with questioning authority or the government, but some people take it too far and question just for the sake of questioning and assume all government statements are lies.  Case in point:  9/11 Conspiracy Theorists.  I think it's pretty sad that there are people stupid enough to simply buy into the ignorance of something like Loose Change which was crafted by nonsensical college know-nothings, but then completely disregard actual structural engineers when they explain the quirks in how the towers fell.  This is when questioning goes too far and reaches absurd levels.

You're right and wrong about "Conspiracy Theorist".  When the administration labels anyone who doesn't agree as a conspiracy theorist.  The United States knew Osama Bin Laden was a threat and didn't do enough to stop him, while making friends with the Taliban all the way through June 2001. Those are some pretty big mistakes, and for asking for an evaluation of our errors so it doesn't happen again, I would be labeled as a conspiracy theorist who is asking too many questions. (This would be directed at both Clinton and Bush)

Also, America is not a Democracy.  It's a Republic--and that's what it was intended to be from it's inception by the founding fathers.  A Democracy is "rule by the rabble," so to speak.  Democracy makes lynch mobs right because everyone in them can vote to lynch/hang/execute someone they merely perceive as a threat.  A Republic is ruled by law, which supercedes Democracy.  A hundred people may vote to execute a man believed to be guilty, but the law ensures that man is properly tried to make sure of his guilt or innocence before-hand.

Constitutional Representative Democracy or Constitutional Democratic Republic are the two most common modern names for the system in the U.S.  Because the people elect the legislature of the republic it is considered  a democratic republic or representative democracy.  Because the basis for the governments power is from a single legal document that takes precedence over all others the word constitutional is put in front.  Democratic Republics and Representative Democracies are referred to as democracies because pure democracies don't exist on a national or international level.  Swiss national democracy is not equal vote per person because each state has to pass a law, giving more power to an individual in a state with a lower population.When a person says "Republic" they are either referring to the state as an entity or to non-representative Republic.

Different Democracies are structured in a variety of ways, so making broad statements about what is valued higher in one or the other is not going to be correct. Even from state to state in the U.S. different jurisdictions put different levels of value on law, morality, group, individual, order, freedom, democracy, and property.

Essentially, your original post reeked of radicalism that had mostly socialist overtones, with the exception that you don't like paying taxes (move to Nevada, shmuck!) and actually believe that you can take care of yourself when, in the modern world of "blame everyone and everything but me for my poor decisions and outcomes," it just seems far-fetched.  Maybe you can take care of yourself, but you're not Bear Grylls and only know how to "take care of yourself" under an existing government system.  Take away the government, and then test your mettle against a lawless land to see if you can really care for yourself.  Assuming that most all "western powers" are oppressive is a blanket radicalist statement.  Trying to sugar-coat it by saying "there are degrees of oppression" is kinda silly.  Sure, the Patriot Act sucks, but it's a far cry from the kind of true oppression that existed under Hitler, Stalin, or those other wonderful folks like them. 

You still have to pay federal income tax in Nevada, dumb ass.  I never mentioned any radical changes that should be made.  I use strong language to get my point out that moderatism and rational thinking need to be the basis for the actions of our state.  I never said anything like: eliminate all taxes, make murder legal.  I'm saying: let's make sure that our freedoms aren't being abridged too much.  How much oppression are you willing to live with? When we live together we have to have rules, but how does banning a Video game contribute to the wellbeing of the community?  There is no scientific or rational philosophy that can support this; only the rational of fear.  Banning one violent game but not another is very suspicious did one company do something someone doesn't like?  In the U.S. bans are attempted on video games to push some religious agenda.  In Germany it to push an apologist one. (I'm Jewish, my personal feelings about the Holocaust have little to do with the fact that the apologists in Germany are hurting Germany not helping.)

Don't like paying taxes?  Suck it up, because that's how the government gets funds.  Anarchy is what you get without any government system, and anarchy is unlikely to be a steady system given the naturally volitale state of anarchy--meaning that at some point, all anarchy evolves into some kind of government system and eventually, taxes are needed to fund said system.  This isn't to say that all taxes make sense or are necessary--frankly, the government could be doing a much better job of handling that money, if you ask me.  For one, I think all Senators and Representatives should work for minimum wage and nothing more.  In that sense, minimum wage would be increased to workable standards, and in another, you'd get more honest people doing government work because they have a passion for government rather than a passion for money and power.

Again, I didn't say I don't like paying taxes.  I don't like paying income taxes, I made that very clear.  I also did not support anarchy, only for those who live in democratic countries to be watchful and do their jobs and respect the difference between voting for necessity and voting for fear.

About the line I italicized - When you eliminate fair pay for elected officials, all you'll get running for office are the wealthy.

The modern world, America especially, still offers loads and loads of ways to be an individual. 1. You act like a dark day is looming where that won't be the case.  2. Sure, if Hillary was elected and her communist health care system was implemented, there goes the freedom to choose your doctor or provider, but even that's a hefty step away from total destruction of individualism.  Personally, if people don't have health care, that's really their own fault or doing.  3. Get a job and organize your bills and live within your means then the monthly bill for health care coverage wouldn't seem so ridiculous.  I know it's tough, but people simply need to be more self-reliant.  I think what's a more dangerous possibility isn't a removal of freedom (in so far) as the masses wanting the government to have more control so that the government will take care of them.  And that's not freedom.  That's a government babysitting it's people and ratcheting up taxes to do it.  Like Hillary said when quesioned about how her overly expensive, irrational health care plan was to be paid for, "we'll just go after their income."  I have an idea she's probably never heard of before:  4. "Be fiscally responsible and let the people keep their money."

1. It can, at any moment if we are not diligent.

2. You obviously do not understand the health care plan that she was pushing.  I also oppose socialized medicine, but now you sound like the fear mongering one.  Democrats are no more or less inherently evil than republicans.  They both have their strengths and weaknesses.  The medical system is a weakness for both. (explained in 3)  Yes, socialized medicine is bad for the U.S..  But it wouldn't be the end of picking your doctor, you could always pay to see the doctor you want.

3. There are other problems with the health care system.  People pay for insurance and don't get coverage.  This is because of Republicans being in the pockets of care providers.  The system is set up to deliberately keep out competition, to fix prices artificially high, and legally deny coverage.  Socializing it is not the answer.

4. As far as "fiscal responsibility" goes both U.S. parties are pretty much the same when you look at the bigger picture.  Democrats want to give the poor a check every week, Republicans want to give it once per year as a tax credit.  Either way they are buying votes.

In conclusion, I am a moderate who uses radical language to push the discussion.  Many Americans have some radical beliefs and use moderate language to cover up those radical beliefs. Republicans use words like national security because national power and pride isn't something we are supposed to talk about, abandoning centuries of legal tradition behind habeas corpus and eliminating judicial and public scrutiny requires rationalization.  Democrats want to socialize medicine, but that's a bad word so they dress it up as working to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.

I'll try to keep this the last moment of my hijacking of this thread.  To the OP:  FORGIVENESS PLEASE!