Well this seems odd, I guess that means the democrats will be vying for Al Gore firendship.

Wow. This makes me kind of upset. McCain was my top pick for GOP, but now that I know he takes advice from Lieberman, I am a bit unsettled.

But still, Obama for 08.

Rudy might be the pro-video game vote in the republican primaries. Will Wright seems to think so.

http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/bystate_detail.php?city=OAKLAND+++++++++++&s...

@MR.B

Rudy might be the pro-video game vote in the republican primaries. Will Wright seems to think so.

Rudy might not be so much "pro-game", as "anti-market-control, pro-deregulation". "free-market, limited-government values".

So he'd denounce certain games with the best of them, but unlike the Democrats, he probably wouldn't actually enact legislation to control them.

I'm not surprised by this endorsement. Both were keynote speakers at the late Jerry Farwell's "Friends of Israel" conference, and made public statements reinforcing the assertion that US foriegn policy should reflect prophecy contained in the Bible [particuarly the book of Revelations]. It is a shame that such superstitious morons are elected as public officals while our foriegn policy, domestic rights, economy, and rights as gamers continue to diminish at the hands of a theologically charged fascist crusade against the vast majority of the American people.

You won't find a pro-game canidate in 2008. Canidates on the right derive their moral norms from hateful and evil Christian superstition that demands the mass propagation of perverse Christian values and norms. Such sick individuals fundamentally hate games, people, and cultural elements that deviate from thier superstitious and disgusting "values." Canidates on the left will not support gaming rights because it is one of the few issues that allows them to connect with "family values" voters with little consequence. Gamers do not give a damn about censorship and have not mobolized any effective lobbying efforts in Washington.

EZK: I think that it is time that you got your own blog and moved your bigotry there.

While I think it's important to continue to monitor various political idiocy on the game industry, and to not let such pass by without public rebuttal--I really can't say video game legislation is on my top concerns for the 2008 campaign issues.

@ Diane 

Its not on many people's list of top priorities either. It is just something that we are interested in. But it does help to judge the character of candidates though.

Take Romney for instance. He is very anti fictional violence, but avoids discussing waterboarding and other torture techniques.

Take Hillary for instance. She wants to legislate video games to keep them out of kids hands, but is willing to let the junk food industry regulate themselves when it comes to kids.

I could go on, but I hope you see my point. When it comes to violence or "for the children" many candidates only pick and choose their targets. They do not support those agendas to the fullest extent. They lack the conviction to go the full mile. They only care enough to get the votes, after that, they have different agendas to persue.

@Pandralisk
"Gamers do not give a damn about censorship and have not mobolized any effected lobbying efforts in Washington."

You be surprized in what can happen in a matter of a few months.

A lot of how the public view games in whole comes from old media. It all comes down to the marketshare old media is losing, not politics alone, in why game game biz keeps being attacked. For example; a few months after the PS2's online adapter was launched, Sony released statistics about the number of people playing online and at what time. The numbers at the time was quite shocking. According to those numbers, there was more people playing online with the PS2 than there people watching American Idol (at that time, it was American Idol's second season, the ratings of the show was very high).

To the canidate's, my generation (18-35) is a unstable and difficult voting bloc to understand. We don't have landline phones to answer telephone polls. Where on the internet and play games more than watching television, thus we end up watching less TV ads than other demographics.

@ MR.B

To the canidate’s, my generation (18-35) is a unstable and difficult voting bloc to understand. We don’t have landline phones to answer telephone polls. Where on the internet and play games more than watching television, thus we end up watching less TV ads than other demographics.

Very good point. It is very hard to get involved in politics, when those who are running are unwilling to learn about our interests. But of course it is a catch-22. If we are unwilling to seek political information, how can we expect them to seek information on us.

Pandralisk = banned.

He was warned previously.

Finally! He was a prime example of the types that piss me off about the "left".

Anyway, as for McCain, never really cared for him then again there's not a single candidate that I feel like getting behind and yes, even Ron Paul as he'd likely be completely ineffective as president barring the house and senate actually caring about something other than themselves and getting reelected. Maybe it'd give them the message, but they'd choose to ignore it. There's a host of issues as well, but that's the main thing. Don't get me started on the Democrat side... I've never liked Lieberman either. He too is a hypocrite and a member of the PTC or at least he was a few years ago.

MR.B -- How is Giuliani small government? He's pro-Patriot act, pro-gun control, and I believe he's won more muzzle awards than anyone but the Bush administration.

Actually I's the second to thank GP... Dog_Welder beat me to it.

I like McCain and I like Lieberman. I think the problem for McCain, and I'm sorry if someone mentioned it and I didn't see it, is that he fails at connecting with the younger generation. The guy has some good ideas and has stayed with his platform without too much change; however, I think a lot of the younger generation (18-35 to borrow from Mr.B) just see him as old politics. The kind that gets elected and sticks around for a hundred years or so. Then, the generation sees his failed presidential attempts in the past and his soft stance on illegal immigration and start to move away from him.

I think illegal immigration and homeland security are two big issues for this generation. McCain is weak in both since illegal immigration plays into homeland security.

Of course, this is just my take on it.

I be of the conservative flavor and Obama is looking better and better to me every day. But overall none of the candidates impress me too much.

But I'll tell you one thing... since I've been eligible to vote there have been no presidents except Clintons and Bushes. I'm tired of them both and I don't want more...

Pandralisk's final words, sent to me via e-mail:

I'm quite upset that you chose to ban me for posting an on-topic discussion on the issue of religion, politics, and gaming.

My positions were little more than analytical statements of fact that identified the true enemies of those who value gaming: antiquated, hateful, religious "values" derived from Bronze Age superstition. Such values are what label completely fictional games "violent," "perverse," and "obscene."
For someone who supposedly values games, you appears quite willing to allow Christian hate to rape games of their artistic freedom without discussion or free inquiry. You and other GP readers do not seem to understand that fundamentalist politicans have woven religious hate and superstition so deeply into politics that the two can rarely be untangled. Skeptical? I ask you this: where do these politicans derive their values -- which force them to label games as "oceans of filth" and "a danger to America's young adults and youth?" -- and how are these values manifested into public policy that effects gaming? Stop giving religion the "get out of critcism free" card when it hoists the standard in the vanguard of the assault against gaming.
Your actions have clearly articulated an anti-philosophical mindset, and you site will continue its pointless normative bickering over painfully obvious, bland, and unquestioned issues until games fall under the religious censorship of those who hate freedom. Many of your readers cling to their absurd religious superstition and label anyone who brings into question its moral validity a "hate-filled, bigoted lunatic."
They do not realize that their faith in a genodical, child-killing, monster (guilty of more crimes than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined); and their choice to inject their personal religious hate into public policy is an act of hate in itself. It is almost as absurd and intolerant as censoring a voice bold enough to identify Christian hate for the force of censorship and intolerance it has become in America. I hope you enjoy practicing such an unprofessional, biased, and ignorant form of moderation. My posts were singled out for moderation because many of your readers can simply not handle the truth. Those who insulted, flamed, and labeled me with childish terms were not punished for their actions. Others who mindlessly support certain religious premises, or the perverse political leaders who advance them, were equally not held accountable for "off-topic" discussions.
Enjoy your childish play pen of a blog. I hope your paternally sheltered readers enjoy their daily dose of "Jesus friendly" game "politics." Your site is anything but politics and real discussion. I am not surprised the forces of Christian hate have managed to suppress yet another voice and value system bold enough to identify Christian hate as a perverse, biggoted, and disgusting pile of superstitious filth.

--Pandralisk

@Pandralisk

Good ridden really, spreading anti-religion hate is no different from the show called Christian hate he claimed was so corrupt.

It's ironically funny how Pandralisk's post-ban tirade looks exactly like a Jack Thompson tirade. He's so full of Hate that he can't see his own hypocrisy.

@ Pandralisk's ban

Good riddance. Atheists have bad enough PR as it is without lunatics like him exacerbating our situation.

@ Topic

McCain is one of a handful of Republican candidates for whom I can foster some respect, but I had no plans of voting for him regardless, per his stance on issues far more important than my video-games.

Imho, he isn't electable anyway. Obama '08.

For those not wanting to read Pandralisk's final screed, let me sum up:

1) Your web site and those who post here suck.
2) Religion sucks and is the cause of all the world's ills.
3) You're all a bunch of closeminded jerks.
4) So there.

Take out point #2, and it sounds just like Jack.

As I've said in a few other posts, McCain has voted against regulation of violent media in the past. But, then again, he has been known to flip-flop from time to time when it's politically convenient, so, yea. On the other hand, he is a pretty no-nonsense kind of guy, so he might slap Congress if they waste their time playing with games.

As for Will Wright donating to Giuliani, I'll second what Jabrwock said about it being more of a pro-market thing. Giuliani might be an authoritarian nightmare in most other areas, but when it comes to games (and industry in general), I'd probably rank him about third on the issue. Then again, if he were to follow through on his promise to nominate strict constructionist and federalist Justices, he could very well end up blocking his own power grabs (and turning back old ones).

I don't much care for either of the above, but if anyone is undecided, it might be worth consideration.

John McCain is another "Do anything for a Buck" polition.

In the mid 90's, he campaigned successfully to get the UFC taken off cable PPV television. Later, it was revealed that the family of Cindy McCain, his wife, is the largest Budweiser distributer in the nation.

What does this have to do with anything?

Budweiser was a major sponsor of professional boxing, and the growing popularity of the UFC was cutting into their PPV profits. So McCain got rid of this new competition that was hurting the family business.

Good riddance to Pandralsik. Geez, i know it's been said before, but he was like the Anti-Jack Thompson here. Except instead of hating JT, he hated EVERYTHING.

did anyone hear the "Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me" the other day? They made a funny joke about Lieberman's endorsement of McCain, though I'm not about to break it by trying to transcribe it from memory here.

Awww darn. I actually feel bad, its never fun to ban someone who can on occasion add to the discussion.

As much as i despise Lieberman for his anti-Free Speech, Pro-Censorship and anti-youth polices at least the man is one of the few politicians out there with integrity. He doesn't flip-flop on the issues and didn't join the anti-violent media campaign and anti-gaming bandwagon solely because it would get him votes. Even if we strongly disagree with him, he truly believes what he's doing is right.