i bet they pruned every single censorship question out, which would involve all the game questions.

The other problem is that voter apathy for the 18-20somethings is still prevalent. If we can get that group to vote as a block you'll see every politicians head spin so fast they'll whiplash.

Pandralisk,

I thought you were warned not to get your hatred of christianity into a topic again?

Depending on how many questions were submitted and what percentage of those were video game related questions, I think it would be very unwise of them to not include one.

If they do include one they will most likely include the one that reinforces the gamer stereotype so that they candidates don't look bad.

Sucks for me. :(

Sucks for me too. It'd be nice if they field my question, but I won't hold my breath.

Ron,

Or at least enough of us are exit polled in some relevant number.

Republicans are even less likely to give a dang I think. In the first place the moral conservatives don't approve of games, and the moral conservatives are typically considered to be the transmission on the GOP vehicle. In the second place, they've pretty much just got their hands full convincing people that they won't be another Bush.

Personally. I don't see the point to electing a republican, I really don't. The years since I started watching current events have taught me nothing if not bipartisan bills are an endangered species. Politicians CANNOT get along. If we want a government that gets a dang thing done we can't elect a majority congress of one party and a president from another.

My opion may not reflect all gamers but it is my opion. My background is a gamer who grew up in the 80's and 90's right when it was just starting to become very popular. I play consoles, computers, arcades, and handheld devices. I have play all kinds of games. Shooters being my favorite among RPG's and others. I like Violent games but I agree with politicians on one account, our current rating system is not effective. What I mean by that is that the current rating system has little or no enforcement to make sure that the games of higher ratings aren't getting into the hands of underage gamers. I do love my video games and want to seem them protected but in the spirt of compromise, I think we need to find ways to help to enforce this current rating system for Video games so that our underage gamers aren't exposed to things not deemed appropriate for gamers who are underage. Now I do say that there will always be parents who let their childeren do whatever they like but their are those like me a parent of three who don't let their kids see or play games not appropriate for their age.

@Nicholas

the ESRB is ineffective? what do you propose, then? a government-run regulation committe? why just video games?

the MPAA is a self-goverened body. it's against policy to sell R-rated tickets to minors, but it isn't against the law. why, then, should it be against the law to do the same with video games?

enforcement doesn't begin and end at the cashier, despite what the censors tell you. nor does there need to be a law.

jadedcritic,

Voting "at least something will get done" is dangerous, especially when you look at this crop of Democrats' ability to flop on the head of a pin for a few extra poll-points. Republicans are litte better - but at least with a D congress and an R President you don't have unneeded sweeping "reform" bills, with 1 billion in Pork Barrel spending tied to it.

Voting should be based on a candidate's legislative record and their views on the issues each voter cares about. And I realize that no one candidate will ever exactly match, but if there were more than 2 party choices, we'd have a real choice. The prentense of choice in recent elections is a farce - R and D are two side of the same Authoritarian coin. Making a choice based on party is the worst way to vote and the real cause of the crap we have for leaders.

Truth be told, I'm at the point I'd rather have unneeded sweeping reform bills then more, hold course/preserve the status quo nonsense. I'm usually pretty conservative, but I'll admit the Bush administration's seemingly complete inability to get any real kind of meaningful domestic legislation passed has pissed me off bad enough that I'm willing to tolerate 8 years under democratic rule again. (No, that wasn't a typo, I said 8 years and I meant it.) Considering that like the last four or five presidents have all been 2-term presidents, I see no reason to believe this will be any different. As for the pork-barrell spending, I'm not too worried about that either simply because it's not like the alternative (republicans) are going to balance the budget. How much has Bush spent on Iraq? Don't misunderstand me, I'd love to see the budget get balanced, but I don't see any of the canidates we have available as having the stones to do it, and even if they did; presidents don't write the budget, congress does. So if we elect a republican president and he keeps vetoing budgets because of pork barrell spending, we're still stuck where we were to start off.

Don't misunderstand, allot of folks are basically advocating more then two parties, and I wouldn't have a problem with that. By all means, let's do it. In the meantime though, that's not how it is. 2K8 we'll basically have to make a lesser of two evils choice. (South Park characterized it once as having to choose between a douche and a turd.) We can elect a republican who will most likely fuss and fight with congress for at least another two years, or we can elect a democrat and put up with their clumsy reforms and pork-barrell spending. Given the choice, I'm probably going to vote across parties. (I'm registered Rep.) At least clumsy reform still counts as action.

I don't expect any questions asked by anyone, let alone a gamer asking about games, to get a straight answer from a politician. It simply isn't in their nature, unfortunately.

Like it's been said before, politicians won't leave games alone until people like us are politicians. I just hope they don't forget their brains when they move to Washington.

Huh, I didn't realize so many others were asking these kind of questions to the candidates. I asked a similar question myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgdBiU7lsek

...I hope they take one of the video game questions, but I kind of doubt they will...

Well, the thing is, the current crop of politicians are stuck in the mindset that ALL gamers are under 18years of age. They don't realize that most of us are actually of voting age.

Which would normally be useful for us voters. The problem is almost all of them believe "games= the evil."

Is it really neccessary to ask the party of Christian fascism if they oppose, and wish to censor and stomp out, games that contradict their deluded value systems? Among a great many other things, the canidates featured in tonight's debate live for taking away your freedom as a free thinking adult and value the utility of censorship.

Questions about game laws are pointless. We know how these superstitious morons feel, and we know that they will never cease their attacks on the freedom of both consumers and the industry as a whole.

@ Pandralisk

Christian fascism
deluded value systems
utility of censorship
superstitious morons

Awe... No 'bible thumpers' today. I think you are slipping. Better refill your hate fuel.

Well, the line item veto power Clinton had was struck down for part of his time in office, which in some ways was a bad thing, especially when it comes to taking pork out of bills that politicians love to try and sneak in.

If one of these questions gets on tv I may die of shock. I would bet that they would air a Jack Thompson anti-videogame question before they would air one from a gamer.

@ Baramos

Yeah too bad I can't vote in the Democratic Primary or I would vote for him there. But he is the only candidate from either party I would consider.

But I am still keeping an eye out for some good "third party" candidates.

" . . . 10 hrs of mindless screen stare and let real thinkers determine what issues are important."

10 hous of mindless screen stare? You mean network TV, right? oR Fox News?

Knowing CNN not only will they likely edit it, yeah they'll pick the worst of the bunch.

What are the odds that they use that "angry german kid" video from youtube...

@Chalts

(bows) I happily stand corrected.

@Veno

And I thought you were warned not to coerce me against making valid comments? And not to offer Christianity a soft and cuddling hug -- making immune to objective critcism -- when it is a valid point of discussion?

Watch the debates. Does any canidate NOT ramble on about who loves Jesus more, hates different people the most, and will shove "family" values down the throats of America?

I'm glad to see all the opinions and views here. I don't disagree that the system we have now can be effective through it has it’s flaws. I don't argue that it's improving either but maybe some support would be great but if we as a gaming community want to keep our uncles hands out of it then made be need to take this rating thing quite a bit more seriously than the past. With everything that is going on and the growing movement against violent video games maybe we need to put out the word more. Educate the parents that are ignorant of this system. As well as urge the retailers to push harder restrictions on the sale of games that age restricted. I understand that we want to keep it in our control but if something doesn't happen soon then we will have to deal with government controls. If that does come to play then maybe we need to make sure to have people in our community defend our views and opinions. My view is "Pro-Gamer" one way or another.

I am quite angry.

Classic debate, ignore the tough questions, stay true to your personal line. Not even one censorship question, not suprising.

After this debate, I am of the assessment that Ron Paul would make a great VP, and if the Republicans would stay out of people's lives as far as marriage and abortion goes, I'd be more inclined to vote their way.

i cant wait till we have to vote :) soon they'll be like "i need you vote "

hmm, so not a single gamer video picked.
not that they were the majority or anything, but I also notice that there doesn't seem to be any videos chosen filmed by anyone under 21.
I know that the candidates didn't pick the videos, but I do wonder what their belief is in the credibility of someone in their teens caring about politics. I will be voting after all, are they going to assume that I will be a wildcard no matter what? that there's no reason to campaign for my generation?

@ Austin:
There was one question by an 18-year-old woman. I forget what it was about, though.

@ Pandralisk

First off, it's Venom, not Veno. Second, WTF are you talking about? Do you even know at this point? Lat thing I recalled is that last time you brought this crap up, Dennis warned you to cut it out. I can give you a link if you want.

Just as a thought, but i believe that part of the problem here is the use of the word "gamer," sure in our circle its fine, but to anyone outside of the gaming sphere it is used in a derogative way, i personally think if forward movement is desired that the word "gamer" to describe our selves not be used

the word "gamer" has a connotation of a 16yr old highschool student hiding in their basement playing games all day, yes that has changed as the generations have shifted but to the outside thats the way its still seen

For people who don't know you need to get your stats right. The largest group of gamers today are under the age of 18. The average player age is 33 and has been playing since they were 12. If you want to see more check out the link below.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/top_10_facts.php

http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php

Correcting my statement of the largest group of gamers is actually in the 18-49 year bracket not the 18 and under. So it looks like the majority of gamers today can vote.

But hey! We got the red neck asking a question about the Confederate flag in there!

@illspirit,

actually that bill was FOR limiting violent tv to times children are not likely to be 'a substantial portion fo the audience' not a motion to kill it.

Although what surprises me the most is that LIEBERMAN voted against it. Kinda surprising.