Where the Presidential Candidates Stand on Video Game Legislation

GamePolitics readers are obviously quite interested in where the presidential candidates of both parties stand on video game issues.

But so far, there hasn’t been much hard information available on this topic.

Now, watchdog group Common Sense Media has helped fill in the blanks. As reported by Jacques Steinberg of the New York Times:

Common Sense reached out to a dozen prominent candidates seeking the Democratic and Republican nominations… to ask about the policies they’d imagine implementing in regard to children and the media.

In addition to Senator Edwards, three others responded by the organization’s deadline… former Governor Romney, Governor Richardson and Senator Barack Obama.

Senator Edwards and Senator Obama and Governor Richardson said that they’d be more inclined to let the video game industry try to police itself… than to have the government regulate [violent game sales], at least as a first step.

Governor Romney, by contrast, suggested that “we get serious against those retailers that sell adult video games that are filled with violence and that we go after those retailers.”

Mitt Romney’s response is no surprise. A Romney campaign ad earlier this year lumped video games into an “ocean of filth” in which today’s children are supposedly swimming. And while she did not make the deadline for the Common Sense Media survey, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has been a high-profile critic of game violence – and Hot Coffee – over the years.

According to the NYT report, Clinton, along with Republicans Mike Huckabee and John McCain, expressed interest in participating in the survey but did not respond by deadline. Only Rudy Giuliani flat-out refused to participate. But his kids are older and apparently aren’t on good terms with the candidate following his messy divorce from their mother.

CSM founder Jim Steyer plans to invite the eventual presidential nominees to a national forum on media issues next fall. That sounds a bit optimistic given that the fall of 2008 is crunch time in the run-up to the November election.

Detailed breakdown of candidate video games responses here.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Nory says:

    Ok, I understand where they are going at but they overlooked 1 thing. Parents. If the parents step in and take control of what they’re children play then we wouldn’t have all this violence, if the parents know that the children are prone to copy what they see than don’t buy them violent video games, for example me myself, I am 15 years old, good grades, never gotten in serious trouble, but I play games like Grand Theft Auto, and such, but I was raised in a well respected enviorment, knowing right from wrong, but like I said if the parents don’t take control of course they will become violent

  2. 0
    LSulla says:

    The threat of censorship is a very important issue to take account of. It’s important that a candidate be consistent. Either they are are for censorship of all violent/explicit media (Including Movies, books, artwork, radio etc. not just video games), they are against censorship, or they are being hypocritical.

    I agree with laws against selling adult material to minors without parental consent, but that is the responsibility of the the retailers and not the creators, which isn’t impeding the rights of the game creators or censoring artistic expression. However it bothers me as a gamer to see persecution of Video Games in lieu of other art forms.

    It is important to know where a candidate stands on this issue as it will either expose a hypocritical/opportunistic attitude or indicate how he/she will view similar censorship issues. It may not be the deciding factor of the election but by no means is it insignificant.

    Also my two cents on the candidates is that democrats/liberals tend to be much more serious about censoring the people and saving us from ourselves. While a lot of it is pandering to get votes I see such attitudes as dangerous to individual freedom. I have no doubt that Clinton or Obama will jump on the the game-bashing bandwagon. Either that or skillfully avoid the question and beat around the bush like they seem to do on every issue except while bashing each other.

  3. 0
    R.L Shattuck says:

    You have to care about MORALS whether or not you choose to believe in God! This great country we live in, The USA, gives you the right to choose your faith and even choose to have no faith, but you will find nothing in our constitution that supports one’s choice to be immoral. That’s because most acts of immorality are illegal and ultimately lead to DEATH and DESTRUCTION. Just look at the track records. Consider the history. It has taught us over and over again that morals are important.
    What’s bullshit is not a perception at all, but a fact. It’s the immorality of the gross & senseless violence, the illicit sex, and the glorification of drug use “shoved in the sphere” of the human race (particularly in the sphere of the minds of our youth, who are still deciding what is moral and what is immoral!) through these video games and teen movies!

  4. 0
    JustChris says:

    Chris at gamescholars.org,

    You are right. The content hasn’t changed for the most part. It’s the standards that have changed.

    Speaking of old cartoons, why were afternoon cartoons deemed not educational enough by the government? It’s not TV’s obligation to educate. The Telecom act did jack **** to help bring more educational content. Aside from PBS it didn’t force the networks to add any, they just opted to remove cartoons altogether if they couldn’t meet the “EI” criteria. As a result afternoon TV boiled down to a bunch of talk shows and Cops re-runs. How is that any better than cartoons with no educational content?

  5. 0
    Terrible Tom ( User Karma: -1 ) says:

    GP – Great articles(They honestly are Top-Of-The-Line quality), terrible community. GP just never had a strong community and it never will until things change. Don’t get me wrong you have the right to run the website as you wish but being sponsored by the ECA I’d think you’d be a bit more responsible in terms of allowing people to express their views no matter how extremely radical or unbelievable they are.

    I’d honestly like to contribute to the discussions but its gotten worse and worse here over time. I give up again. Its stupid to even continue trying to contribute. Waste of my time. I only hope ECA gets their own forums SOON so people can openly discuss the important articles you put on GP.

  6. 0
    Greg says:

    @ Terrible Tom

    Of course, I see Pandralisk as nothing more than a far-left idiot.

    But that doesn’t mean I want him banned either. So I agree with you. Guys, simply because Pandralisk supports a rather radical viewpoint doesn’t mean he should be banned.

  7. 0
    Greg says:

    If you ask me, people like Hilary are much more dangerous to video games than a flip-flop like Mitt Romney. First of all, she’s ONLY targeting video games. Romney is targeting ALL media. Sure, Romney’s an idiot (a rather charismatic idiot, I must admit), but he’s nowhere near as big a threat as Clinton. Clinton, focusing her critisisms just on the video game industry and not the media as a whole (which is, incidentally, controlled mainly by liberals), is a greater threat.

  8. 0
    Terrible Tom ( User Karma: -1 ) says:

    I can see the connection. Perhaps it is a small connection but it is still there. It is all the matter of opinion, dude. Annoying to you, refreshing to me. I just think some people are afraid of different opinions and often get worked up too much when someone expresses their feelings and it doesn’t come close to matching theirs. Start banning people for expressing different opinions? Maybe in the forums but not here man. I vote for keeping GamePolitics a worthwhile blog. The GamePolitics forums are pretty worthless but there are still quality articles and good comments being presented by many readers that have a good variety of opinions to present.

    On a more article related note I think you can do research and determine what each candidate would do just by looking at their voting record and their proposed bills. There isn’t much hope, I say Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul would present the best possible environment for the game industry to strive.

  9. 0
    Father Time ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @Terrible Tom

    By out of line we mean off-topic almost every time, and repeating the same old things over and over and over again. I’ve only seen a couple of posts by him that didn’t touch on religion. It’s annoying and he hasn’t shown signs of stopping.

  10. 0
    Terrible Tom ( User Karma: -1 ) says:

    Am I the only one who doesn’t think Pandralisk isn’t out of line with his comments?

    Perhaps you guys need to let people have their opinions and leave it at that. (aka I nominate Austin Lewis for that ban hammer just because he thought it was a good idea to request a user be banned for such silly reasons)

  11. 0
    Terrible Tom ( User Karma: -1 ) says:

    Only answer I liked having to do with video games is Ron Paul’s. Basically stated that it is the parent’s responsibility, especially since we already have a self-regulatory system in place.

  12. 0

    I just don’t want to see games and game content to end up getting watered down in the same way as Saturday Morning cartoons.

    As a thirty-something, I grew on cartoons like the Jetson’s, Scooby, Smurfs, The Flintstones, etc. Can anyone imagine these cartoons being released today? It would never happen, because they are funny for being cultural critiques (well maybe not the Smurfs).

    Games, given enough pressure on the industry, may end the same way–or like cigarettes and alcohol, they will need to swipe your ID before you purchase.

    I don’t have an answer of what to do with games, but I think ultimately, politicians should be making claims similar to following when asked about their stance on video games:

    “I am all for educating parents on new types of media, the possible content of said media, and ways to engage their children in discussions of appropriate usage said media.”

    I watched violent movies growing up and played video games since they were first available to the average American (before probably on VIC-20). However, my parents engaged my brother and myself concerning what we watched and played and taught us to be critical, intelligent, informed consumers.

    Why should that be politicians focus–it’s not the product that is problem, but the consumers’ use and understanding of the product.


  13. 0
    Pierre-Olivier ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    Better tell this to Pandralisk himself. Each time he attacks Christianity in comments he’s convinced that the news is about religion and that religion is the core of the problem (reminds me of someone we both know).

    Just to quote:
    “The above story has EVERYTHING to do about religion. Where do the moral systems of fundamentalist politicans who label video games as an “ocean of filth” and call for censorship come from? It’s not like they’re citing the categorical imperative or making an argument from utility.” -Pandralisk,
    December 10th, 2007 at 9:33 pm

    And he still wonders why we’re “flaming him” *sigh*.

  14. 0
    Mnementh2230 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Sometimes I think we need to go back to a time when only the educated were allowed to vote… ok, it used to be educated land owners – skip the land ownership part, and just make it “educated”…

  15. 0
    GoodRobotUs ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I think what is annoying me, and why I am posting less, is because someone on here who is a self-proclaimed atheist talks about religion far far more than many of the more devout members on Gamepolitics.

    This place never really touched on religion much until this started, but all I ever seem to read on here all day is how terrible the church and its fundamentalist members are, or people defending the church because of those posts. Not being funny, but I am not Christian or any other denomination, and I’m sick of hearing about God, even if it is nothing more than an ad-nauseum attack on Him and those who believe in Him.

    Just because I don’t believe in the Christian God doesn’t mean I feel the need to attack those that do, I like to think I’m a little more secure in my lack of faith. But seriously, even Thompson, who was/is a foaming at the mouth zealot, never bought up religion as frequently as this.

  16. 0
    Monkey face says:

    ok were all screwed cesspool of filth? police themselves as a first step? sounds like the whole comic book thing of the 50s aka do it urself or we’ll hit you hard
    ” Pandralisk Says:

    December 10th, 2007 at 9:02 am
    I like to identify two types of political opponents of the industry: Fundamentalists and Opportunists.


    Fundamentalists — like JT, Huckabee, and Romney — despise video games for the sake of their content”

    where has it said huckabee’s opinion on this?i ask because atm hes my #1 pick as i figure dems wont matter because its pretty much just going to be hilary and for me she’s not an option being the anti videogame shedevil that she is.

    side note any1 else suprised jt hasnt come on tv about the whole colorado church attacks(he might have i just havent seen it(thank god))

  17. 0
    Kilted Raven says:

    I’m all for free expression, but our resident rooster is drowning out any gaming debate left on this site with his repetitive crowing.

    He’s derailing ever damn thread he posts in.

    Can someone just ban his sorry ass for a few weeks until he learns to stay on topic?

  18. 0
    Wengler says:


    Read that quote again. Romney is saying that only a religious people can create and maintain a system with freedom. There are many countries in this world with a good deal of freedom and not a whole lot of organized religious belief and a whole lot of countries where organized religious authority is used to stifle freedom.

    Romney is either ignorant or pandering.

  19. 0
    halofantasy1 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I have a feeling that something will come along where the consoles allow certain AO rated games like the uncut version of Manhunt 2 and The Punisher to settle the situation.

    I think that politicians should push towards the entertainment industry to have consoles allow AO rated games so we would not have to waste all this time fighting over the uncut versions of games like Manhunt 2 getting into the children’s hands.

    What I have to say is every time I have went to a few video game stores, I always seen the workers ask for id to buy M rated games.

    Game producers should not have to rely on having the most brutal uncut games on the PC when they could have them on the consoles with proper standards.

  20. 0
    Mad_Scientist ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @Game Industry Insider

    It’s true that in the grand scheme of things, video games are a relatively unimportant issue.

    But the way a candidate treats that issue can reveal quite a bit about him/her. And if I can’t trust a candidate on the little issues, do I want to trust him on the big ones?

  21. 0
    illspirit ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Pandalips, you’re more gullible than the superstitious “Bible thumpers” you always shriek about if you believe Romney’s statement was anything but opportunistic. We’re talking about the same guy who, practically overnight, morphed from supporting abortion, gay marriage, socialized health care, confiscatory gun bans, and illegal immigrant “sanctuary” to the exact opposite when he decided to run for POTUS.

    The man is nothing but a big-government, Massachusetts “liberal” who is telling Republican voters what he thinks they want to hear.

    As for the rest of them, I noticed they all had ‘if they don’t do better,’ ‘if they don’t clarify the ratings,’ and ‘but we should still investigate’ type statements. How much better does the industry have to do to satisfy them? Enforcement of game ratings is already like twice as good as DVDs, withe rating labels ten times as big. Maybe it’s just me, but I translated them all as basically saying “unless you have an impossible zero percent error rate, we will pass laws.”

  22. 0
    Pierre-Olivier ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    Those two are from the same bowl. Can always count on Pandralisk to find something remotely religious to start his usual rant, no matter how far-fetched it can be.

  23. 0
    Game Industry Insider says:

    I’ve been an industry reporter for more than a decade, and honestly I couldn’t care less what the candidates think about games! I mean we have a war on terrorism, inflation and energy issues.

    If Rudy G. were to say, “…and I will ban games,” I’d still vote for him in a heart beat. This industry needs to understand it is 100% entertainment. Let’s get over it.

  24. 0
    Icehawk ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @ Pierre-Olivier

    Aye I hear you. Old, annoying, weak and pointless.

    Tell me though why is it that we know better and still feed the Troll?

  25. 0
    ConstantNeophyte ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @ F**ked Up

    Its blue, but I can’t click it O_o

    Its kind of funny of how all the post lately have been turned into a religious battle. I wonder why?

    That’d be Pandralisk, he could turn a discussion on the finer points of cabbage growing into a flamewar about religion. Even my magnificent itellect is not immune 😀

  26. 0
    F**ked Up says:

    Its kind of funny of how all the post lately have been turned into a religious battle. I wonder why?

    There are other ways people go about picking there morals/ethics it doesnt have to be focused always on religion. Click Here

  27. 0
    ConstantNeophyte ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @ That_1_Guy

    Yeah, I had the same experienc:

    At first your just laughing at the absurdity of it, then you realise that he’s being dead serious and believes everything he says, you start feeling a little scared.

  28. 0
    ConstantNeophyte ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @ jkdjr25

    Nope, I took no issue with the second part of the statement, that people should come to religion freely. In fact I endorse that, I don’t particularly like randoms knocking on my door to sell me anything (not just religion).

    Freedom allows the existence of religious choice. There is no requirement. If there is a requirement for freedom to exist then there is no freedom.

    While this is little more than an argument about semantics, it is the assumption that religion is the equal of freedom in terms of importance that really bothers me.

  29. 0
    That_1_Guy says:


    Hey quotes, thanks! I already looked at a few and some of them are hilarious….then again when I think about those quotes I realize that the man himself said those words.

  30. 0
    jkdjr25, formerly bayushisan ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    You misunderstand what was meant in that comment.

    Freedom requires religion and religion requires freedom. Its not that difficult a concept to understand.

    Religions, like Christianity, require that a choice be made; for that choice to have any meaning a person must have the freedom to choose. Whether they choose to believe or not to believe is up to the individual. This is an example of religion requiring freedom.

    For a society to be considered free there must also exist the ability to choose to believe or follow a particular religion. If no one is allowed to believe in anything but secularism then that society is not free by definition. That is what is meant by Freedom requires religion.

    I hope that clears things up.

  31. 0
    ConstantNeophyte ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @ T5

    I guess I could have expressed my self more succinctley:

    The second definition of freedom: “2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc. “

    The third definition of requires: “To impose an obligation on; compel:”

    “Freedom requires religion…”

    What a huge fucking contradiction.

    That more enlightening?

  32. 0
    halofantasy1 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Can you guys tell me of a site to go to where Jack Thompson chats and leaves comments because I am interested in the stuff he says?

  33. 0
    ConstantNeophyte ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Other than that quote above he comes of as wanting to separate his religious beliefs from his political aspirations. Whether he actually can is a totally different story.

  34. 0
    Erik ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    “Where do the moral systems of fundamentalist politicans who label video games as an “ocean of filth” and call for censorship come from? It’s not like they’re citing the categorical imperative or making an argume”

    Where do you come from? If anything you are a prime example that moral zealotry can come about even without having a moral code based on religion.

  35. 0
    ConstantNeophyte ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone…”

    What a crock of shit.

  36. 0
    ConstantNeophyte ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    For clarification: I mean politicians and lawmaker’s decisions.

    Imagine the shitstorm that would happen if an atheist judge ruled that religion was illegal.

    We require Judges and other professionals to make impartial decisions on things they may disagree with personally but due to the nature of their jobs, are expected to act in a fair and impartial manner.

    Politicians should be held to the same professional standards.

  37. 0
    ConstantNeophyte ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Wow, I leave for a bit and the thread goes crazy.

    @ Mad_Scientist

    Decisions shouldn’t be made on a moral basis but on a logical one.

  38. 0
    Pandralisk says:


    Supporting politicans who arrive at political stances solely because their faith warrants their beliefs [ie: opposing and desiring to censor fictional forms of violence and sex, denying homosexuals equal rights, attacking sexually oriented buisnesses, curbing scientific research to perserve formless aggrations of cells, etc.] IS a form of injecting your personal religious values on other people. Imposing your faith on others occurs any time to government enacts a law, created to enforce moral norms derived from religion, that takes away the freedom of a person: be it striking down the rights of homosexuals, regulating the content of video games, stripping women of their rights, stopping stem cell reseatch, etc.

    The above story has EVERYTHING to do about religion. Where do the moral systems of fundamentalist politicans who label video games as an “ocean of filth” and call for censorship come from? It’s not like they’re citing the categorical imperative or making an argument from utility.

    I tend to follow a very loose form of Kantian ethics [primarly the principle of autonomy wed with the harm principle] that drops much of the universality baggage that made Kantian ethics so contentious. Instead of defending my ethical thoughts through the maxim of universality, I usually opt to demonstrate epistomogical uncertainty and then create a pragmatic argument from it.

    GP: Pandralisk – it’s time to stop bashing on religion. This isn’t the place for that. Stick to topic going forward.

  39. 0
    ZippyDSMlee ( User Karma: -1 ) says:

    my bad I have to many wrecked trains of thought 😛

    suffice to say anyone who thinks of goverment censorship as a choice is off my list,anyone who thinks banning gays or abortion is also off my list.

    So now I have
    3.Anyone but Hiltery/Rudy/Ronmy/Thompson

  40. 0
    Mad_Scientist ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    Eh, I don’t really want to turn this thread into an abortion debate, it’s off-topic enough as it as, but at least you recognize that it’s not just a religious issue.

    Back on the original topic, I noticed how if you read the in-depth responses, none of the canidates seemed to have THAT strong a view against government regulation of video game content. Still, at least they weren’t all openly supporting it.

  41. 0
    ZippyDSMlee ( User Karma: -1 ) says:

    True true,however its still imposing on women a view that a cluster of cells that might(50-90% chance) turn into a fully functional human is still a unacceptable view if banning or sever limitations are a “option”.

  42. 0
    ZippyDSMlee ( User Karma: -1 ) says:


    heres the wiki, a quick read it’s basically to keep goverment from imposing on religion and creating freedom of religion and the rights of the population regarding religion, not so much about protecting goverment from religion which now that I think about it is only soemthign we have actively done for the past 30-50 years, PCisim is a btch!

    anyone want to point out none vague statements saying religion must be kept from goverment?

  43. 0
    Mad_Scientist ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    You may not be saying that, but some seem to take things that far, or almost. And one someone says a statement like “you need to divorce faith and politics”, or something similar, it can be hard to know exactly how far they intend for that statement to carry.

    Many people also mischaracterize certain debates as religious issues. Like abortion. Many people believe abortion is killing, and come to that view for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. Many people who view abortion as killing but who are also religious would still have that view regardless of what their faith was. And yet, to so many people, abortion is just an issue of “religious nutjobs forcing their morality on women.”

  44. 0
    That_1_Guy says:

    Alright after reading several comments I just have to say that everyone needs to shut up about religion. As an atheist I support Seperation of Church and State. This pretty much means that the government should not and cannot support one religion over the other. However, there are some politicians who would rather blatantly ignore this (I’m not saying anyone in particular). It’s just sometimes a politician’s religion or beliefs will get in the way of what is morally correct.

    This article is in no way about religion and it shouldn’t be. Pandralisk, you do not need to be bashing anyone just because they believe in (beg pardon) a supernatural being based on books and scriptures. So everyone just shut up about religion unless it pertains to the article above.

  45. 0
    ZippyDSMlee ( User Karma: -1 ) says:

    I am not saying there needs to be a zero tolerance approach to the removal of faith/religion from politics, merely a real effort to look at things logically without defaulting to “ZOMG SIN”.

    Objectiveness is everything for me to vote for a overtly faithful politcaion.

  46. 0
    Overcast says:

    seperation of Church and State clause

    Could you actually, umm post a link to that specific clause? Now, I’m not talking where it says ‘Congress shall make no law.. concerning religion’ – I mean ‘separation of church and state’ specifically?

  47. 0
    jkdjr25, formerly bayushisan ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    Dude. You are seriously egging on the wrong person with this issue.

    I do not impose my faith on others and I take offense at the accusation. Talking about and sharing one’s faith is not imposing it, and I am really fragging tired of hearing that it is.

    The above story had NOTHING to do with Christianity. You inject it into every issue because you are a bigot and a zealot. Fanatical atheism isn’t a good thing either sport. Think on that a bit before you try and lambast me for having principles that I can not and will not be moved from.

    I’m a free speech advocate and have been since I started posting here. Ask around. I’ve defended people’s right to say stupid things at the same time I said I disagreed with them. Most Christians do the same. Now knock it off.

  48. 0
    ZippyDSMlee ( User Karma: -1 ) says:

    Couldn’t it be more than the separation of church and state keep the church and their hierarchies from Washington but not so much personal faith.

    The trouble of coarse is when dose religion become a burden on goverment, if its zero tolerance to religion you are going for thats automatic fail, zero tolerance in anything is a joke.

    BTW liberal democracy? not even we are democratic republic with laws created by the elites of society to govern the nation, basically whatever group has the most power/money in society can nudge the goverment in the direction they chose, it just happens Christianity has the largest numbers at least in the elites of soscity large numbers.. prehaps that whats your pissed about that any large group of people can in fact side line the goverment by changing it bit by bit over the years.

    Nice Islamic straw man there too.

    For me I do not care what demon they worship as long as they can don’t summon him while I am still living 😛

  49. 0
    Mad_Scientist ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Ah, yes, “divorce faith from politics”, that good old argument, backed up by ridiculous strawmen examples.

    A person’s faith, assuming it is actually real and not just an act, will effect all of their views, including their moral views. And there is no way to seperate thier faith from their morality. So to divorce faith from politics is to force anybody of faith to divorce their moral views from politics. Sounds good to some of you, right? At least until you consider what moral views actually are: a person’s views on what is right and wrong. So all of you who are arguing that a person should not let his faith influence his politics are essentially saying that a person’s views on what is right or wrong should have no effect on his politicial views. Yah, that will certainly help politics in the US.

    All a person of faith really needs to do is understand the role of the government. It is not the role of goverment to enforce all of God’s laws or even get involved in some things. For example, while I belive adultery is immoral, I would never ever want the government to get involved in it. Because it’s not the role of the government to do that. But I don’t have to divorce my faith from my politics to have that view; rather, my faith actually effects my view on what the government should be dealing with and my belief that it shouldn’t get involved in that.

    Recognizing what the government should and shouldn’t do is not the same thing as completely divorcing faith from politics. People need to understand this, even if some of you might wonder why the distinction is so important.

    “[if] Parts of it were not objectively and horribly evil”- you’ve said statements somewhat like that in the past, and now that you’ve said it plainly, I have to wonder.

    You believe in objective moral values of right and wrong. Or else you couldn’t have made that above statement.
    You also are apparently agnostic. (You say you aren’t an atheist.)
    So… where exactly do you believe those objective moral values come from?

  50. 0
    That_1_Guy says:

    It’s hard to chose who to support (though I’m probably going to vote Democratic) because well how do we know they will uphold the Constitution and everything it stands for? What if what they are saying what we want to hear? There are so many grey areas. Today it just seems so hard to trust politicians ever since the “Patriot” Act and some terrible decisions with war. Can’t we all get along with other nations despite their beliefs and ideals?

  51. 0
    Coravin ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Umm…at the risk of being off-topic for the actual conversation going on, but on-topic for the article, it’s nice to see some candidates approaching the video game “issue” from the right end. Let the industry do their thing BEFORE trying to spend taxpayer money on things they don’t understand.

    I only hope that more of the candidates will actually look into the state of videogame ratings rather than acceptng the word of sensationalist organizations or those decidedly anti-videogame organizations. It would be nice to see the next president actually learn something about a topic he/she wanted to legislate beforehand.

    That, and we’re safe if they do, since the real world is full of evidence that the ESRB’s ratings are considered more detailed and accurate than movie ratings (mainly because they are), that the Internet is already full of plenty of resources for parents, and that basically no scientific evidence exists of true harm due to videogames while plenty exists of their benefits.

  52. 0
    ZippyDSMlee ( User Karma: -1 ) says:

    I more than understand Pandralisk’s hate for petty moralisims but it’s just that it goes beyond religion to petty and shallow trains of thought.

    Then perhaps you should think about what you are doing before you crawl into someone pants….

    Sadly that’s for the courts to decide case by case, if one cannot fully take care of the child it defaults to the mother’s decision to end the pregnancy or not, you are only truly half of the equation near and after birth and have limited say in how another individual dose with their body pre birth.

    Sometimes things are better left dead, there is so much life and death in the world to whine over every little thing is quite pompous and foolish, if a relationship can not bring a child into the world into a stable environment then why risk that life becoming corrupted by instability it’s a simple case of damned if you do damned if you don’t.

    Life is harsh there is no getting around the issue and white washing it clean by claiming a higher ground and forcing the woman to have the child its her body first and foremost if the father can prove he can raise the child in a stable environment by himself then maybe via the court things can be arranged, this is basically a property matter until the 3rd trimester or near birth.

    I realize I am simplifying but frankly someone has to remove some emotional and questionable religious motivations but look at crimes of passion and how they are treated differently from in cold blood crimes, one must be mature and see both sides and what the law can impose on the issue.

  53. 0
    Pandralisk says:


    “America was founded by god fearing types. Our civil liberties reflect this. It is written into our laws and reflected in our social values.”

    Funny. Must I really quote the obscene amount of literature that counters this statement? There are countless letters from both Washington and Jefferson that refute this statement, an offical statement by John Adams authorized by one the earliest Congresses, and the religious beliefs of many Presidents [including Lincoln] have either challenged or deviated from the overwhelming majority of Christian dogma and the theistic state you seem so eager to promote.

    This is a liberal democracy that grants people with equal rights before the law. Ever tried reading that thing called the Constitution? Remember, your obscenely overgeneralized appeal to Utilitarianism [could this same argument not justify slavery?] violates virtually every precedent established by civil rights in this country: 14th amendment, seperation of Church and State clause, and 19th amendment to name just a few.


    Stop imposing your religion on other people, seriously. You need to stop thinking that religious politicans you support, like Huckabee, should have the right to strip people of their personal beliefs, values, and moral norms through injecting religion into politics. I know as an Evangelical Christian you might not have a problem with current politicans injecting their religious values into legislature, but you must understand that this has never, is never, and will never be a Christian nation.

    Would you be so quick to defend religion in the government if radical Islamic leaders were elected into goverment and then began passing anti-Christian laws that challenged your values because their faith demands it? Religious values are too vague, superstitious, and potentially evil to govern the lives of people. We are a nation organized under a secular government that uses secular principles to ensure that you will continue to enjoy the right to be as superstitious and hateful as you wish [and you’re doing a terrific job at both].

  54. 0
    chadachada(123) ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    Sry to be off-topic, but i have to disagree. The baby IS 1/2 the father’s…so why should the decision be left solely to the mother?

    ex) What if the guy truly wants the baby while the girl doesn’t? or vice-versa? It wouldn’t be fair to just kill MY baby because the chick wants it dead, it is half mine

    On-topic, i have listened to Ron Paul talk about 1st ammendment rights, i like his ideas and position

  55. 0
    DarthCylon says:

    Dude I always liked Obama(I am not black or racist) and now I have another reason to like him. It is fiotting to see a political figure saying to let the industry police itself! Obama 2008!

  56. 0
    ConstantNeophyte ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Okay, my last post was off topic.

    Back on topic(ish), I think serious consideration should be given to a testing system for politicians. You want to pass legislation about video games you should first be tested to make sure you fully understand the subject you are talking about.

    No pass, no say on the subject.

    That, or perhaps a test for any legislation as to wether it is actually required and wether the legislation would actually be effective.

    This approach should save a lot of time and money.

  57. 0
    Tye The Czar says:

    I guess that nobody really gets the idea of the First Amendment, oy. That, and they should just keep pressuring the ESRB to enforce itself since it’s the best means of escape, oy.

  58. 0
    ConstantNeophyte ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Heh, never thought I would agree so readliy with Pandralisk, but he/she is correct when saying that no-one should be making decisions that have wide effects based soley on their beliefs. Any such decisions should be based soley on logical grounds, eg. ZippyDSMlee’s statment on abortion.

    Politicians are welcome to say that they personally find the practice abhorrent as long as they don’t use this belief to undermine the rights of those who disagree with them.

    My personal view on abortion is if you don’t have a vagina you shouldn’t have a say in the matter.

  59. 0
    lumi ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @ jkdrjr25:

    “Maybe its just me but I don’t seem to recall ever seeing a law up for vote in the congress to make women conceal their faces or to make unwed mothers illegal.”

    That is because:

    1. You don’t live in the early 20th century here; took awhile before “common sense” included women’s rights.
    2. You don’t live in one of the many middle eastern countries where woman are basically treated as property, and the two issues you quoted from me are indeed reality.

    These are extreme examples and not (currently) issues in the United States, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are direct results of the law being dictated by the tenets of the ruling party’s (or individual’s) faith.

    Conejo and Zippy both offered perfectly legitimate examples of this.

  60. 0
    Mr. Blond ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Thank you Edwards for some *ahem* Common Sense. Too bad he’s too liberal on terrorism and foreign policy. Same with Obama. Richardson has shot up even more in my book.

    Right now, I’m going with Giuliani. It’s a good sign he didn’t seem gung-ho about this as an issue. I have a feeling it won’t be on his agenda.

    Duncan Hunter is also one who wants to try regulating the industry. And Alan Keyes is in the race if you haven’t somehow uncovered the fact, and he’s also pushing it as part of his moral agenda.

  61. 0
    ZippyDSMlee ( User Karma: -1 ) says:

    Well said!

    my 1 cent extra

    Replace religion with emotion and you get the same end result, one cannot do something against the grain and logic, one must do what’s best for all not just for a few.

    For instance abortion and gay rights/marriage, the state does not have a compelling reason to block gay rights/marriage that should be between individuals and church’s as for abortion that should be regulated like any other operation the only care of the gov is that it’s done correctly and without harm to the patience to blindly inject moralisims into a personal place for a woman ..nay individual is insulting to society as a whole..

  62. 0
    jkdjr25, formerly bayushisan ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @Conejo and lumi

    Maybe its just me but I don’t seem to recall ever seeing a law up for vote in the congress to make women conceal their faces or to make unwed mothers illegal.

    That’s because there’s this thing called common sense. Its basicly understanding when something, like trying to make being an unwed mother illegal, is a colossaly stupid idea.

    Pure logic isn’t always the best course of action. It must be tempered by faith in order to come to the best conclusion. Remeber that logic and faith are not anathema to each other. The two can often co-exist, sometimes you need faith when logic fails; but that’s another issue entirely.

  63. 0
    lumi ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @ jkdjr25

    “I think what you’re asking is unreasonable. People of faith can’t just turn it off because you happen to disagree with their decision making abilities. Plus its unconstitutional to ask them that. They have the right to freely express and practice their faith.”

    Ironic that you claim this to be “unconstitutional” when the Constitution does, in fact, call for a separation of church and state. It’s one of the most fundamental principles upon which our government is founded, for which I’m extremely grateful (even if certain politicians like to ignore it).

    If you want evidence as to why religion informing secular decisions is a bad idea, look no further than the middle east. Theocracies are a terrible, terrible idea; there are just too many notions imbedded in the ancient religions of the world that have no place in modern, civilized society that become law. Women’s rights, anyone? Not if you live in a Muslim-controlled theocracy.

    Secular decisions must be based on LOGIC, not faith. You can pray to whichever deity you choose that events turn out however you wish, but do NOT make your political decisions based on the tenets of your religion, unless they are justified by something grounded in logic as well. Thou shalt not kill? Great, keep it, there’s plenty of LOGIC behind that one. Women shall not expose their faces outside the home?


    No. Just, no. Faith != logic.

    “What you’re asking would be like telling an artist to stop being an artist when making a decision. They wouldn’t be able to do so and they shouldn’t have to.”

    Completely faulty analogy. This would be akin to asking an artist to design a building for people to live in, and telling him that it must conform to specific standards of structural integrity, rather than simply being “beautiful”. Not to mention that, much like “right” and “wrong”, what one person considers “beautiful” is not universal to everyone.

    “A person’s faith is a part of everything that they do and every decision that they make. It would be a violation of that faith to make a decision that went against the things they believe in. So the only way to get what you want would be to ban anyone but athiests and agnostics from running for office, and THAT is definitely both unconstitutional and discrimination at its worst.”

    Wrong again. What is unconstitutional, and discriminatory, is forcing the beliefs of one person on the masses, which is what happens when people use their personal faith to make political decisions that become national policy. If you can’t make a decision without letting the tenets of your religion dictate your policy, then no, you don’t belong in public office. But that absolutely does not mean only atheists and agnostics are qualified. It means that only they or people of faith who can divorce their faith from their politics are qualified.

  64. 0
    Icehawk ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    America was founded by god fearing types. Our civil liberties reflect this. It is written into our laws and reflected in our social values.

    This is a Democracy. The needs/desires of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. And you sir are virulent minority. If you don’t like it you are invited to get the hell out.

    Back to the topic. Politicians are people (sorta) and have the own personal values (sometimes).

    The reality is closer to politicians being shallow and easily swayed. Those who speak against (or for) games will do so for as long as they think it will garner them the needed/wanted support/votes. When no longer needed they will likely toss the issue aside like an old toy and go off to pursue more pressing (ie vote getting) matters.
    I have yet to see a tried and fast rule for Liberals and Conservatives and their “stance”. If the people (bless their black hearts) in their area (or their supporters like CSM) feel a certain way about games then it is all but guaranteed the politician will as well. Presenting themselves as being for/against a thing to make the serfs happy (read: vote for them). It is rare that personal opinion comes into this (as far as I can tell) personal opinion tends to get them laughed at or mocked like Liberman or resented like H. Clinton.

    Politicians rarely rock the boat and all but never try to go against the current.

  65. 0
    jkdjr25, formerly bayushisan ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    You have no idea what you are talking about. I never said, and have never advocated, treating people with anything less than respect. The fact that you’re so blinded by your own ignorance and hate makes anything you have to say null and void.

    Demanding of anyone that they seperate their faith from their politics essentially represents a “religious test” qualifier for people running for office and THAT is unconstitutional. Kindly take your anti-religios diatribes somewhere else because its no longer amusing. Its sickening and I’m tired of it.

  66. 0
    Christian Astrup ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Why is everyone so offended about the “fundamentalists” comment? In all the previous cases of media-scapegoat (Comics, DnD…) much of the misinformation was floating around in the fundamentalist church communities for a long time after everybody else stopped worrying.
    It just seems reasonable to me that we should try to get a dialogue with the more reasonable members of the group (believe me they are there, theyre just less loud) and try to quell the ignorance so we wont have to deal with the same kind of thing that the DnD people have had to. To this day there are people who think it is satanic – i say we try to avoid that.

  67. 0
    ZippyDSMlee ( User Karma: -1 ) says:

    Part of the problem prehaps, when anything is used a crutch it tends to create them.
    You are right to say there is never one single factor, ignorance + intolerance of anything + easily led = trouble for all, but only a small proration of those with faith are truly ignorant the main problem is being easily led because no one wants to do anything, I suppose thats how society always has been though…….

  68. 0
    Final Assassin 42 says:

    Ironic that Romney condemns violent games when he erroneously and off-handedly called himself a “big-game hunter.” I wasn’t aware the First Amendment had a target on its back Senator.

  69. 0
    Pandralisk says:


    But have I ever advocated revoking the rights of Christians to practice their religion freely or presented a serious argument for censoring their religion? You fail to see the distinction between attacking a right and attacking a normative substance that the right protects. I have yet to see a hardcore religious critic of this industry who denounces “adult games” create passionate defenses of the right to play extremely violent and sexual games. Some may exist, but it still does not excuse the superstition that underpins their values.


    I’d hate it much less if: 1. It was true or possessed valid evidence for its claims. 2. Parts of it did not contradict itself. 3. Parts of it were not objectively and horribly evil. On the contrary, I’m actually quite formalist in my conceptual evaluation of Chrisitanity: most of my critcism centers around parts of the Bible itself. It’s quite sad that a historical consideration of the religion would paint a far darker picture.

  70. 0
    Rigor Mortis says:


    You know, you might hate Christianity less if you actually knew what it was. Not only are pretty much all your accusations based on Mosaic Judaism, you pad your argument with fabrications, a complete lack of historical, political, and social context, inaccurate concepts to base your thought process on, and an inability to differentiate the old (politically motivated) church teaching from actual Christianity.

    But most Christians have the same problems, which is why I dislike dealing with them. Religion always works better in theory than practice.

  71. 0

    […] The subject of video games has been fair game for politicians, especially when they need an excuse for disturbed children. GamePolitics is a site that tries to cut through to those issues. Two interesting articles, in the last week, were citing the policies of American presidential candidates on restrictive video game legislation and the European video game developers who issued a manifesto for more representation and less restrictions. Video games are getting more into the spotlight of society and out of the shadows of arcades. How that subject matter is covered and controlled by politics will largely be a matter of how well people in the industry take control of it. […]

  72. 0
    Pierre-Olivier ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    I see that Pandralisk is a man (or woman) of contradiction. He says he hates those who attacks the citizens rights, but he’s as venomous (if not more) as them in his attacks against Christianity.

    As I said before, the REAL smart peoples are those who can make compromises (including to their faiths) and understand both sides of the question. To me, Obama seems the most reasonable from the three (which is, I think, not saying a lot).

    And Pandralisk, saying the religion is the core of the problem is as ignorant as saying video games is the core of the problem. No matter the issue, THERE IS NEVER A SINGLE FACTOR.

  73. 0
    BlackIce, Dragunov Marksman says:


    I don’t believe either, personally. I’m no Fundamentalist. I wouldn’t even call myself Christian if they didn’t believe in the same God as me.

  74. 0
    ZippyDSMlee ( User Karma: -1 ) says:

    Meh gold fish goldfish!

    Hes no worse than thos of faith that monger hate, he could dial back on the whole bible thumper approach and go with reason and logic to dismiss organized religion as causing more troubles than it fixes 😛

  75. 0
    Pandralisk says:


    Careful now, don’t be so hasty to refuse the bible. The Bible is the only thing that makes your faith claims potentially more true than the belief that the universe was shitted from the anus of an omni-dimensional space worm, =P.

  76. 0
    BlackIce, Dragunov Marksman says:


    Good. I’m one of them. Ish.

    The faith isn’t evil, it’s how you choose to interpret it. I personally think the Bible isn’t worth using as toilet paper, ’cause it was written by a few hundred morons across 1500 years. Before Science.

  77. 0
    Shaesyco ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @ Pandralisk

    People like you are why the world is messed up. I personally have no problem with Christianity despite its problems. Christians have done alot of good in the world and yes they have done alot of bad but name me one group that hasn’t.
    More importantly it is wrong to judge an entire group by the few.
    Don’t you know there is a (insert possibly racist word here) in every bunch?

  78. 0
    Evan ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    If you have some inside information on Obama and Edwards in regards to video games dish out.

    If you have worked with the Edward’s campaign and you have a friend with Obama, you know how many of these surveys are tossed out.

    As far as Obama, the only other things I know about him in regards to media/internet is that he was for net neutrality.

    Edwards ruined any opportunity at winning this election for VPing with Kerry in 2004.


    As much as I want to say protect the video games in the end you are absolutely correct. Single-issue voters have no problem voting for ridiculous candidates as long as they agree with the one issue.

  79. 0
    Pandralisk says:



    But, unfortunately, their choice to positivly deconstruct and interpret whatever superstition inspired their beliefs does not excuse the superstition itself of its moral failings. Sadly, their beliefs contradict the superstition itself. Nor does their outstanding moral character redeem the actions of others who denounce freedom to shove their religious values down the throats of others.

  80. 0
    GoodRobotUs ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Interesting, especially considering the BBFC just got it’s wrist slapped over the Manhunt rating, so the problem is dealing with itself without the government getting involved at all in the UK, despite Hilary’s claims.

  81. 0
    BlackIce, Dragunov Marksman says:

    @Austin Lewis

    I hate, I desperately hate to admit it, but he has got a point. Sort of.


    Just to clairify, do you accept that there are some Christians and Jews who don’t follow their crowd, and try to stand up for other people’s rights?

  82. 0
    Cheeselikescereal says:

    Im sorry, if i find a canidate who is right (in my opion) on the issues, but is anti-game I would still vote for them. I hate those stupid laws they try to pass, but there are more pressing matters.

  83. 0
    Shaesyco ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @ EZK

    Wasn’t Obamas stance on video games obvious when he said we should put down the Gameboys and become politically active in our community?

    He probably views video games as a waste of time.

  84. 0
    Pandralisk says:


    Really? That’s funny. I detect a little Ron Paulian hyper-libertarianism in your reponse. If such a statement was true, their political ideologies and stance on gaming would be GROSSLY inconsistent. Most on the left value social liberty enough for it to encompass gaming with little problem. Again, the overwhelming majority of critcism from the left centers around creating laws that set national standards on the sale of games to adults. The critcism is practiced only because it is politically convient to do so: if gamers could mobolize, and become a movement equally as large as the tiny segment of leftist “family value voters,” then I suspect that their positions would change over night. I have yet to see a strong call for downright censorship and content regulation.

    …Now, can the same be said for a moralistic pig like Romney, a person gullible enough to believe that Adam and Eve rode on the backs of Jurassic Era reptiles [Brownback], or someone who has exclaimed that the role of women should be limited to the Kitchen and Home [Huckabee].

  85. 0
    Pandralisk says:


    No, there are critics who would change their stances in a heart beat if it became politically advantageous to support the artistic freedom of the game industry. 99% of these critics are people who value social liberty.

    And, again, their are morally perverse — bible thumping crusader — types who wish nothing more than to stomp out our freedom, directly censor the game industry, and impose their moral agenda on all Americans in virtually every manner: “obscenity” laws, denying homosexuals equal rights, keeping women in the home [Hi Huckabee], opposing civil rights efforts, etc.

  86. 0
    Austin Lewis ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    “Democrats have been in favor of cracking down on game SALES laws, but they do not share the same sense of fundamental hate that seeps from fundamentalist politicans.”

    BULLSHIT. They hate videogames just as much as all the ‘fundamentalist politicians’ because its something they don’t have a government agency to control that they can’t profit from the censorship of.

  87. 0
    Pandralisk says:

    @ Z. Knight

    “Cult of family” refers to those who prioritize perserving the social values of their own family over respecting the rights of others. Such people are not afraid to violate the rights of others to ensure that their children will fall in a certain moralistic mold and will use “for teh children” to justify virtually any assault on the moral autonomy of their fellow citizens. Remember, folks, religion is relevant here. Where do the beliefs – for the overwhelming majority of Americans [and virtually everyone who has a problem with “adult” games] – that fictional violence and sexual conduct pose a danger come from? Why are these activities wrong or “sinful?”

    A person’s superstition [you call it “faith,” but such nonsense contains as much evidence as the belief one will suffer bad luck by crossing the path of a black cat or evoking the power of Thor] should not be used to justify any binding obligation on others.


    If you can’t seperate “faith” [superstition] from secular politics: get the hell out of politics. As an elected offical, you are required to uphold a secular Constitution and represent people of all faiths. No public policy should be warranted by religious superstition; as such superstition is binding ONLY on those gullible, scared, or ignorant enough to believe it.
    We live in a secular democracy that grants people of all faiths religious freedom [by having a secular government, duh]. Elected officals should and can not inject their superstitious hate throughout society.

    Furthermore, I do not personally think it is unreasonable. You would be claiming that some of the greatest figures in US history — including Presidents Jefferon, Adams, and Kennedy — could not manage to respect the religious beliefs of others (when they clearly did). Infact, the Constitution and Federal Legal Precedent clearly demands. People of faith must realize that their absurd beliefs are fallible, and do the fact that such beliefs are derived SOLELY from superstition, the beliefs possess no binding value on others and should warrant NO public policy. If you cannot respect the religious beliefs of others and keep your superstition where it belongs, you should not be serving in public office. But then again, social conservatives [modern facists] are so deluded, perverse, and arrogant in their own beliefs that they assume their perverted and disgusting superstition should function as a norm by which all actions are judged.

    Reality Check: The insane interpretations fundamentalists dream up from a morally perverse 3,000 year old book [deticated to the image of genodical, child killer, murderous dictator] in its 40th edition are fallible, at best, and down right false at worst. The values in such an absurd document are binding on only those superstitious enough to believe such trash. You do not have the right to practice your faith when you use it to rape others of their rights, censor their thoughts, and enslave them to your own perverse moral norms. It’s a shame that Evangelicals and religious facists in this country have made Chrisitanity into the 21st century’s most freedom raping, disgusting, and socially regressive instrument of national policy.

  88. 0
    OtakuMan ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Wow, the first time I’ve ever seen “Common Sense Media” do something

    a) Good
    b) Right

    Those people have been trying to 1-Up the ESRB and undermine the ESA for as long as I can remember. Their actions are second, if not equal, to the NIMF! And that makes a whole lot of widespread ignorance!

    So far, my support has been for Obama since Day 1. The guy has a good head on his shoulders, and is quite smart. He’s bold, daring, and intelligent.

    And from the comments I gained from the news post, it sounds to me like Obama’s take is:

    “You know, I’d rather the game industry take care of itself without the government stepping in. If we have to, then we have to, but I’d rather cross that bridge if we ever come to it.”

    Sounds reasonable to me.

    After all, Hot Coffee definitely shone light on the then current ESRB practices and the content development of the game creators and publishers. It showed that there was a potential for a leak in game content that would go under the ESRB’s radar, and that was patched up.

    Sure it left a nasty rift between the ESRB and lobby-ists, but after the dust settled (even though some people would prefer to kick that dust back up again) the end result was that the ESRB made some changes as did Rockstar.

    They took care of things.

    For the politicos to still be riled up about all this only shows how ignorant they are.

    This is why I like Obama.

    He ain’t like that.


  89. 0
    Erik ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    “Democrats have been in favor of cracking down on game SALES laws, but they do not share the same sense of fundamental hate that seeps from fundamentalist politicans.”

    How does this apply to Christian Democrats and atheist Republicans?

  90. 0
    jkdjr25, formerly bayushisan ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    I think what you’re asking is unreasonable. People of faith can’t just turn it off because you happen to disagree with their decision making abilities. Plus its unconstitutional to ask them that. They have the right to freely express and practice their faith.

    What you’re asking would be like telling an artist to stop being an artist when making a decision. They wouldn’t be able to do so and they shouldn’t have to.

    I’m growing exceedingly weary of having to defend this since it seems like so few ever listen.

    A person’s faith is a part of everything that they do and every decision that they make. It would be a violation of that faith to make a decision that went against the things they believe in. So the only way to get what you want would be to ban anyone but athiests and agnostics from running for office, and THAT is definitely both unconstitutional and discrimination at its worst.

  91. 0
    ZippyDSMlee ( User Karma: -1 ) says:

    I was going to say something like that, Pandralisk has issues with religion to the point of it being venomous to whatever issue he is talking about, if he would focus on other basics like protecting kids and family’s from reality and how most high profile religious politicians seem to put the blinders on to said reality and vote on “faith” hoping that their moralistic whims will not damn the world while gaining them pandering points.

    I believe Ron Paul would run a free as you can get market and let the market censor itself, its a shame Huckabee is pro gov censorship when it has no way to bind and enforce it without breaking laws and the spirit of the constitution I was thinking of making him my 2nd choice but with this hes now below Obama and Edwards who are equally as “inept” as each other but better than everyone I did not mention.

    The rest come in 2 flavors hacks and crooks with Hitlaery being somewhere inbettwen both……….

  92. 0
    lumi ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @ EZK

    Pandralisk said:
    “So the family is a cult now? I find it hard to believe that anyone can believe that the basic natural human unit is a cult.”

    I don’t think he meant to say that the basic family unit is a cult, it’s more the cult-like brainwashing that purports to support “core family values” and all that save-the-children BS.

    Generally speaking, I think Pandralisk comes off way too obnoxious with his Bible-thumper-thumping, but I think he has a legitimate point here. It’s hard to deny that a great many politicians, particularly recent Republicans with a strong Christian leaning, have allowed their faith to inform their secular decision-making to an alarming degree. I absolutely hate that; in fact, one of the biggest campaign issues for me is whether or not a candidate will keep his faith firmly separated from his politics. It’s just plain ignorance to think that that isn’t a serious issue in this country right now.

  93. 0
    Simon Roberts ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Isn’t going after the retailers a good thing? I thought we were supposed to be getting the Wal-Marts and Gamestops of the world to start asking for ID on M-rated games. If Romney was going to go after the industry itself, he would’ve said so right off the top. (Then again, he didn’t toss in the all-important “to kids” qualifier, so it does sound like he wants to keep everybody from buying Halo.)

  94. 0
    Verbinator ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @Pandralisk “…the same sense of fundamental hate …” Even though I’ve “sound-bited” it and taken it out of context here, this quote of yours is what I (and apparently most of the rest of the forum, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof) take away from your comments every time you speak about people of faith and what you THINK their attitudes about things may be.

    Politicians of any stripe who attack games concern me because in the larger sense, they appear to misunderstand the US Constitution and its intent. We shouldn’t have to reinterpret the 1st amendment every time a new medium of expression comes along.

  95. 0
    Austin Lewis ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    I have a friend who works with the Obama election team or whatever they’re calling themselves these days, and I’ve been in Edwards’ office before.

  96. 0
    BlackIce, Dragunov Marksman says:


    Can we not assume that everyone who is not with the industry is against it?

    And everyone who is against it, can just go fuck each other?

  97. 0
    BlackIce, Dragunov Marksman says:

    @Austin Lewis

    “I can tell you for a fact that Senator Edwards’ stance will change on videogames the moment he finds it useful”

    Everyone’s stance on Video Games will change as soon as they realise it gets them votes.

  98. 0
    Terminator44 says:

    “than to have the government regulate [violent game sales], at least as a first step.

    In other words, until there is another Hot Coffee. Then all bets are off.

  99. 0
    Jon Kanders says:

    If you pick your presidential candidate based on their views about video games, you are seriously overinflating your own issue. I hate JT and the annoying laws (all so far killed) restricting games (which only ban sales to kids anyway), but jesus people, there’s bigger fish to fry.

    Stop worrying about Gears of War and start worrying about the real war.

  100. 0
    Geno ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    “we get serious against those retailers that sell adult video games that are filled with violence”

    So why is there nobody attacking highly violent rated “R” movies?

  101. 0
    MR.B says:

    @ EZK
    It’s not as simple as that.Obama knows who his base is, young liberals.He knows that my generation (22) goes on to the internet and plays more video games than watch television (based on total number of hours).In that questionaire he has reluctant to say that the game biz needs regulating.

    The real question that Obama is dealing with is “Do I attack the game biz and possibly harm my standing with young liberals or ignore the game biz and let Hiliary gain more support among the soccer mom vote?”

    Hiliary has been the alpha dog lately on attacking the game biz and Obama knows that it could be a major factor in his campaign against her. Though Obama has attacked Hollywood for the content of whats in movies and television (it was in a old Time magazine cover story).

    This brings up a interesting question, will Hiliary’s past support of Hollywood durring the 90’s be a factor in the war of Obama vs Clinton?

  102. 0
    E. Zachary Knight ( User Karma: 2 ) says:

    @ Pandralisk (yes I actually read all of your statements and boy was it tough. Bible Thumpers is back 😉 )

    So the family is a cult now? I find it hard to believe that anyone can believe that the basic natural human unit is a cult.

    @ the topic

    I am glad to finally hear what Obama’s stance is. I have been trying to find out for a while. I figured he would be in support of the industry’s self policing efforts.

    Of all the front runners in this primary from both parties, he is the only one that I feel I can support. He is the only one that takes technology serious. I also like his plans for opening up the government for public scrutiny as well.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  103. 0
    gs2005 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Mitt Romney has made many comments that I find outrageous (not related to video games, like Obama being TOO truthful about his attempts to consume drugs in his personal past-no human is perfect other than Romney apparently), so while I’m not really pro-anyone at this time, I am anti-Romney.

  104. 0
    Matt says:

    “Senator Edwards and Senator Obama and Governor Richardson said that they’d be more inclined to let the video game industry try to police itself… than to have the government regulate [violent game sales], at least as a first step.”

    This is a good start at least. A statement that claims to let the industry police itself is not something I would have expected in a candidate in the last two elections. Perhaps with more politicians teaming up with the industry (see previous posts here on GP) parents and politicians can be engaged in some healthy dialog with the industry for once.

  105. 0
    Mister Angry ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    …Wouldn’t it be wonderful if people would man-up to their own actions instead of blaming something else. Reminds me of those cases inwhich some young killer on trial would pull that “GTA made me do it” card. It’s just sad that there’s so many people who is willing to go along with that garbage.


    I wouldn’t be surprised >_>. I hear so many kids listening to their iPods so loudly I can hear exactly hear the lyrics to their songs they’re listening too. They’re going to go deaf.

  106. 0
    Evan ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    @Austin Lewis
    “Aside from that, he and Barack are complete jackasses (if you don’t believe me, listen to Senator Edwards talk sometime. You can actually feel yourself becoming dumber and dumber as it goes on).”

    I am not sure how that will help anyone learn anything about Barack Obama.

    Some of these guys actually recognize that this might be something that the government shouldn’t dive into. I don’t understand how you can say either are being disingenuous on this issue. Do you honestly believe that they didn’t sit down and think about what their position meant before they answered?

    No political campaign will ever answer a questionnaire if they believe their response will damage their image or credibility. It is an easy cop-out, because most organizations like these have no teeth to criticize candidates for not filling out their particular survey. If candidate does answer a questionnaire it usually means that the subject matter is of some importance to them. “Flip-flopping” has generally become something quite negative for a campaign and I wouldn’t expect a 180 on these answers by any of the candidates.

    Quite frankly I am not a fan of Edwards (Obama 08!) but even I think your stance on him is skewed by something beyond his stance on political issues. What is it, his accent?

    “Of course, Romney is a jackass too, but at least he’s honest about his views in this case, unlike Edwards.”

    You gave me a good chuckle on that. Romney’s “flip-flops” throughout the campaign season have been well documented (for example, women’s rights). If there was a candidate that could be pinned for switching positions for votes, I think your man would be Romney.

    “As for Richardson, I really don’t know enough about him to say anything on his stance on videogames, so I’ll omit him until I do.”

    What secret information do you have on Obama or Edwards in regards to video games? With the exception of this survey there is little, if any information to be found on their stances. Also, the three Democrats essentially answered the same way, how is that Richardson gets the pass?

    Also, at least those guys had articulate responses as compared to Mitt and his rambling about the cesspool and getting the retailers.

  107. 0
    jonc2006 ( User Karma: 0 ) says:


    good point there. i imagine sometime in the future this attention to video games specifically will shift to a new kind of media. it is stupid how people can blame things on stuff like that and then years later ignore it and go after something else. they will play off current events and current pop culture trends and attempt to connect the two in order to show off some kind of “superior” political logic.

  108. 0
    jkdjr25, formerly bayushisan ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I think that we need to realize that much of the noise being made over videogames is a generational thing.

    Before this it was Dungeons & Dragons, He-Man, and fantasy in general.
    Before that it was televesion.
    Befire that it was comic books.
    Before that it was rock & roll.
    Before that it was “talking pictures”.
    Before that it was the beginnings of the movie industry.
    Before that it was books and other forms of art.

    Its ALWAYS something else, or someone else’s fault.

    Its just how humanity is. We need something or someone to blame for parental inaccountability and non-involvement.

    Being a fundamentalist has very little to do with it.

  109. 0
    Pandralisk says:


    I guess political consistency and moralistic gullibility have blinded you from identifying the true culprit in this case: social values derived from Christian superstition that are implemented on a mass scale. And which political ideology, I might add, stands for raping the individual of virtually every aspect of personal freedom and shoving their bullshit perception of morality into the public sphere? Remember, both Romney and Huckabee are MILD voices on the right. Hell, read Romney’s statement. Democrats have been in favor of cracking down on game SALES laws, but they do not share the same sense of fundamental hate that seeps from fundamentalist politicans. Those who value personal freedom are in contradiction when they wish to censor games; their stances do not fundamentally align with their value systems. Being tough on games is a meer opportunity.

  110. 0
    Ashton ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Why has our political system crumbled so much that the PRESIDENT needs to care about video game legislation now? The president has more pressing matters to attend to than bits of code but here we are, with presidential candidates basing their campaigns on video games instead of stuff that really matters.

    I should be saying why politicians are getting involved at all when there are bigger fish to fry, but sadly this is the state of the country now.


  111. 0
    Austin Lewis ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    I can tell you for a fact that Senator Edwards’ stance will change on videogames the moment he finds it useful in order to get votes. Aside from that, he and Barack are complete jackasses (if you don’t believe me, listen to Senator Edwards talk sometime. You can actually feel yourself becoming dumber and dumber as it goes on).

    Of course, Romney is a jackass too, but at least he’s honest about his views in this case, unlike Edwards.

    As for Richardson, I really don’t know enough about him to say anything on his stance on videogames, so I’ll omit him until I do.

  112. 0
    Pandralisk says:

    I forgot to inject quotes:

    Let me give you an example of a fundamentalist statement:

    Romney: I want to restore values so children are protected from a societal cesspool of filth, pornography, violence, sex, and perversion. I’ve proposed that we enforce our obscenity laws again and that we get serious against those retailers that sell adult video games that are filled with violence and that we go after those retailers.

    And an opportunist statement:

    Richardson: A: I would consider this legislation, but I truly believe that we should make sure parents are educated about the inappropriate content of many video games. We have to get parents — all parents — more involved in the education of our nation’s students. Legislation and teachers cannot do it alone, no matter how good they are. Parental involvement is more important to a child’s success than any test or book.

    As president, I will issue an executive order that provides all federal employees with eight hours per year of paid, one-to-one time with their children. And I will encourage businesses and the rest of the public sector to do the same.

  113. 0
    Conejo says:

    i guess facts are a little hard to come by up on your high horse, Pandralisk.

    democrats have had a more active role in censorship in the past 20 years than anyone else. while Republicans are against video games because they don’t like them, Democrats are telling you what not to watch, think, do, play, or say.

  114. 0
    Pandralisk says:

    I like to identify two types of political opponents of the industry: Fundamentalists and Opportunists.


    Fundamentalists — like JT, Huckabee, and Romney — despise video games for the sake of their content and fundamentally see games as a major problem in America society. In no way do such individuals believe that games have equal intrinsic worth as an art form or should be extended the same range of artistic freedom that other forms of entertainment media enjoy. Their stance on games usually mirrors their stances on other issues regarding personal freedom: they do not value the rights of the individual, and do not extend protection to those who are different or disagree with them. Fundamentalists do not limit their positions to simply tightening up game sale laws; most of the time, they also express a desire to censor games and infuse them with artificial standards that are derived from some form of contemporary morality [99% of the time “Christian” morality]. Fundamentalists are the greatest threat to gaming and the freedom of the individual.


    For the opportunist, being tough on video game issues represents the greatest (and least offensive) way to reach out to highly superstitious and “family oriented” voters who traditionally reject opportunist politicians. Opportunists’ stances on video games are usually contradictory to their socially liberal values (ie, in most other areas they clearly value individual freedom) but can stand in such a state of contradiction because no one in the industry really gives a damn [consumers and developers alike]. Unlike fundamentalists, these individuals have not expressed an obscene amount of seething moralistic hatred and desire to censor the content of games. Most seem content to reach out to the cult of family by simply pushing for stronger game laws. Given the fact that most opportunists hold socially liberal values, they are far less likely to push for censorship, and their socially liberal values might lead them to change their minds on game legislation when the utility gained from their stances declines.

    If you value games, I’d suggest standing behind politicians who either defend the industry or hold at least practice a more opportunistic criticism of the industry. Moralistic bible thumpers, like Romney and Huckabee, will always fundamentally despise things that do not share their superstitious and self-defeating value systems, no matter if the subjects include: violent/sexual games, freedom in film and art, the rights of homosexuals, women’s rights, social liberty, aesthetic freedom, and virtually every other form of liberty that deviates from their perverse conception of “moral.”

Leave a Reply