New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Despite those well-publicized Barack Obama ads on Xbox Live, some gamers remain leery of the President-elect’s views on video games, according to the New York Times.

The NYT’s Brian Stelter writes:

Some players say they are concerned about other interruptions to their games that they consider more serious. Blog posts scoring Mr. Obama’s positions on video games have received hundreds of comments, with some readers worrying that his admonitions during the campaign to “put the video games away” signaled new regulations or restrictions on the industry…

A Web site called GamePolitics, established by a pro-gaming consumer advocacy group, pointed out in February that Mr. Obama had given campaign speeches in which games were used as a metaphor for underachievement.

Mr. Obama’s answers to a questionnaire by the nonprofit group Common Sense Media last year echoed the theme. He indicated that he supported parental controls for both television and video games and called on the video game industry to “give parents better information” and improve the voluntary ratings system. “If the industry fails to act, then my administration would,” he wrote.

GP: Seeing GamePolitics cited in the NYT is sweet, even if they did forget to include a link.

UPDATE: The fiery Obama image at left is part of DLC released for Mercenaries 2 by Pandemic Studios.

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

149 comments

  1. Erik says:

    I feel I need to repeat myself.  I have no problems with criminals owning guns.  The people I have issue with are the Charelton Hestonphille, NRA gun-nuts.  Those guys are scary as fuck.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  2. Chuma says:

    You make some nice points but look in more detail.

    You accuse the liberal for censorship for wanting people to have more information on the food that they eat.  That is not the same as telling them they CAN’T eat it, just that they will know they are consuming huge amounts of calories, fat and salt.

    The child abuse angle, is close but not quite right – there is certainly a requirement on the part of a parent to look after a child’s welfare and if they are giving them something that is making them sick or effecting their health, when it becomes as extreme as some kids I’ve seen, someone needs to step in, even if it is just giving the parent some help in the kitchen.  Sometimes assistance is better than sanction.

    As for the cigarettes and joints, I don’t think a liberal would condemn you for smoking either, just as long as you weren’t smoking it in a place where others could get lung cancer by proxy.

    And yes, all of these above points, I agree with as someone who votes liberal democrat in the UK.

  3. GONK. says:

    Tell us again why you want us to believe you’re now a mental health expert? Slowly now, so you can THINK about what you’re saying.

    No, scratch that – you’ve proven once again that you are physically incapable of thinking or telling the truth. YOU’RE LYING ABOUT "PREDICTING" COLUMBINE AGAIN, you were just caught jerking off to the bodies while falsely claiming to be "saving lives." And you repeated this crap with V-Tech and Salt Lake. And have you forgotten again that your absolute opposition to telling the truth is one of the reason you were permanently disbarred? You couldn’t even make up a convincing story about having a heart condition… You don’t have a heart.

    People, let’s be honest here. If we want to see anything remotely resembling a sane and even-handed discussion about questionable media content and apparent similarities with real-life crimes, then all the self-claimed moral crusaders – the stupid bastards like Thompson who are guilty as charged of encouraging, aiding and trivializing the real-life crimes to begin with – need to be culled. They can’t and don’t want to be reasoned with, this they have repeatedly made perfectly clear.

  4. Chuma says:

    Wrong.  He said that for 95% of people the 2% tax rise would not effect them and that for these people, most would actually benefit.  This is not the same as suggesting he would cut taxes for 95% of people and leave the upper 5% alone.  I think you need to work on your statistics.

  5. Thomas McKenna says:

    Wow…overgeneralize much?  From what I’ve seen, the stereotypes you try and play off of tend to be in the grand minority.  The majority of people who own gun licenses don’t even get parking tickets.  They almost never use their weapons for crimes, and are for the most part ideal citizens.  Why you fear law abiding citizens more than people who buy and use guns illegally is beyond me.

  6. Austin_Lewis says:

    Hey Jack, I didn’t realize you were qualified to diagnose psychiatric disorders!

    Oh wait, you’re not.  Hmm, I wonder what the APA will have to say about your shenanigans?

  7. Erik says:

    What you aren’t allowed doing though is repeatedly dodging your bannings as you have been.  Your cyberstalking of this site and its owner is NOT within your rights.

     

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  8. Erik says:

    Yes we did see some jackass in Thailand try to get out of personal responsibility by clinging to a scapegoat that scum like you try to hand to them.  But try as you might to keep killers on the street you once and always fail.  I would really think that you might realize that Thailand’s problems with crime have to do with its illegal sex industry.  But then again as you have shown with the Cody Posey case you don’t care if children are raped, as long as they don’t play games.

     

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  9. Erik says:

    Senility setting in early I see?  You already posted this letter fucker.  This constitutes spamming.

     

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  10. Shedek says:

    You’re kidding, right?  I mean, Obama has gotten a huge amount of flack for wanting to LEAVE Iraq!  Hell, one of McCain’s major stumping points was that Obama would bring the troops home in ‘defeat’, but McCain would lead them to ‘victory’?

  11. michelleobamarama says:

     

    So "Da1rocky" is the name your parents gave you?  Fascinating.  Are they incarcerated for child abuse?  Oh, here’s the full letter, including letterhead to Ramsey.  Note the disclaimer at the top.  Thanks:

     
    John B. Thompson, Juris Doctor*
     

    amendmentone@comcast.net

    *Not Admitted to Practice Law in Florida

     
    November 11, 2008
     
    Evan Ramsey, Inmate
    Spring Creek Correctional Center
    Mile 5 Nash Road
    P.O. Box 2109
    Seward, Alaska 99664 
     
    Re: New Trial
     
    Dear Evan:
     
    I had the pleasure of speaking with your father about the link between Doom and your actions at Bethel Regional High School a number of years ago. I had been on 60 Minutes about the link between that game and the deaths of my clients’ three daughters in the Paducah school shootings by Michael Carneal.
     
    I had predicted “Columbine” on NBC’s Today a week before it happened, predicting the role of Doom in such school-based killings. This, of course, was the game that trained you to kill without your knowing that it was doing so.
     
    Some recent brain scan studies at Harvard now prove the link between violent video game play and acts of violence such as what you perpetrated at Bethel. More specifically, since your conviction the US Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons endorsedthis brain scan technology to strike down the juvenile death penalty. This ruling can help you possibly get a new trial, and I am more than happy to try to help you get it. Roper cries out for your new trial.
     
    Even more specifically, you should now be examined to see if you suffer from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). If you do, then this ties even further into the neurobiological evidence that we now have. My familiarity with your personal history suggests you have PTSD, as you tried to kill yourself when you were ten. Violent video games are processed in the posterior cingulate in the brain, and this is where post traumatic stress disorder arises. So, your violent video game play, if you have PTSD, was even more likely to lead to violent behaviors over which you had no control. I find your prosecutor’s comments that “some kids are just bad” to be absurd. She obviously has missed the last 200 years of psychology and psychiatry. She also apparently never heard of the Bible.
     
    Let me know if you want my help. 

     
    Regards, Jack Thompson

    So Da1rocky is the name your parents gave you?  Fascinating.  Are they incarcerated for child abuse?  Oh, here’s the full letter, including letterhead to Ramsey.  Note the disclaimer at the top.  Thanks:

     

  12. michelleobamarama says:

    Glad you asked.  There are no guns in Japan, and apparently you didn’t know that.  Knife killings and attacks are up, though.  Maybe you missed the GTA-related knifing of the cabbie in Thailand.  Most people are aware of that.  Try to keep up with events, please.  Thanks.  Jack Thompson, Once and Future Lawyer  

  13. michelleobamarama says:

    Nope.  I’m no allowed to pretend I’m a licensed lawyer.   That’s it.  I’m still allowed, kids, under the First Amendment, to communicate with people, even with jerkball gamers.  Nice try.

  14. michelleobamarama says:

    Nope.  I’m no allowed to pretend I’m a licensed lawyer.   That’s it.  I’m still allowed, kids, under the First Amendment, to communicate with people, even with jerkball gamers.  Nice try.

  15. michelleobamarama says:

    Oh, and as to #1, if it’s clear it isn’t Michelle Obama, then what’s the problem?  You do have a sense of humor even though you’re a gamer, right?  I’m one of the few people here that actually uses my real name to post, unlike the legion of anonymous cowards here, and you know I posted this, so your question is rather silly, no?

     

    JACK THOMPSON, THAT’S RIGHT, JACK THOMPSON   

  16. michelleobamarama says:

    Happy to answer your questions, as follows and in order:

    1.  No.

    2.  I’m not soliciting legal advice.  Duh.

    3.  I’m not trying to fix a trial; I’m trying to undo an injustice.

    4.  As a citizen, I apparently know a Hell of a lot more than you do.

    Any more questions?  Jack Thompson, J.D.

     

     

  17. jkdjr25 says:

    Isn’t it illegal to present something like this the way that you did, i.e. endorsed by Michelle Obama, when it clearly isnt?

    Isn’t it also illegal to solicit legal advice when you aren’t a lawyer?

    Even more so isn’t at the very least extremely unethical to try and put the fix in on a trial?

    As an ex-lawyer yourself shouldn’t you know this?

  18. Nekowolf says:

    "And Obama has stated that he plans for the Iraq war to go on for an undefinable period of time."

    Whaaaat? Where the fuck are you pulling that one from? FOX News?

  19. michelleobamarama says:

     

    Gamers should not fear my husband, Barack Obama.  His transition team is working with Florida’s Jack Thompson, and Jack tells me and Barack that "All we have to fear is pixelated fear itself."  Here is our friend Jack’s latest, which falls in line with Obama’s promise to federally regulate the video game industry if Take-Two doesn’t get its s–t together:

     
    November 11, 2008
     
    Evan Ramsey, Inmate
    Spring Creek Correctional Center
    Mile 5 Nash Road
    P.O. Box 2109
    Seward, Alaska 99664 
     
    Re: New Trial
     
    Dear Evan:
     
    I had the pleasure of speaking with your father about the link between Doom and your actions at Bethel Regional High School a number of years ago. I had been on 60 Minutes about the link between that game and the deaths of my clients’ three daughters in the Paducah school shootings by Michael Carneal.
     
    I had predicted “Columbine” on NBC’s Today a week before it happened, predicting the role of Doom in such school-based killings. This, of course, was the game that trained you to kill without your knowing that it was doing so.
     
    Some recent brain scan studies at Harvard now prove the link between violent video game play and acts of violence such as what you perpetrated at Bethel. More specifically, since your conviction the US Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons endorsedthis brain scan technology to strike down the juvenile death penalty. This ruling can help you possibly get a new trial, and I am more than happy to try to help you get it. Roper cries out for your new trial.
     
    Even more specifically, you should now be examined to see if you suffer from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). If you do, then this ties even further into the neurobiological evidence that we now have. My familiarity with your personal history suggests you have PTSD, as you tried to kill yourself when you were ten. Violent video games are processed in the posterior cingulate in the brain, and this is where post traumatic stress disorder arises. So, your violent video game play, if you have PTSD, was even more likely to lead to violent behaviors over which you had no control. I find your prosecutor’s comments that “some kids are just bad” to be absurd. She obviously has missed the last 200 years of psychology and psychiatry. She also apparently never heard of the Bible.
     
    Let me know if you want my help. I am not practicing law, but I was for 32 years, and I can try to get you an Alaska attorney to file the necessary papers to secure a new trial on this newly discovered scientific evidence that relates to your specific situation.
     
    Regards, Jack Thompson

     

     

  20. Nekowolf says:

    First, our prices are not set by OPEC. Prices are set from others, such as the oil companies. So then, I ask, if we were to have a shortage why are prices now DOWN by almost half? The argument makes no sense. Oh, we’re about to have a shortage, so let’s lower prices.

    It is then obvious, that there were no real reason for the gas prices to be so high in the first place, if they can drop down so low now.

    As for deregulation, that is what Greenspan fought for, deregulation. After the Great Depression, regulations were set up, but then later on, they (like the banks and such) started to complain about it, so Greenspan fought to remove those regulations. Then, you have people like those loan companies going wild with high-risk loans, and well, here we are.

  21. Erik says:

    You are correct on Obama’s voting record.  But I’ll just have to forgive him that 3% that he fucked up on.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  22. Erik says:

    How about instead I distance myself from you by saying I do more than just slightly "lean" left.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  23. Erik says:

    Were it not for the 2nd amendment I would be for gun control.  Often people who claim to be "responsible gun owners" are often just scary ass, gun-nut, psychotic, redneck assholes.  I have more issue with them than the "illegal gun owners" who buy guns on the street for petty crime.  But alas, 2nd Amendment.

     

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  24. Erik says:

    "If that’s what the people want, then so long as none of the Constitutional rights is broken, then I don’t care."

    Hence my issue with you Republican.  Why should I be forced to adopt your morality?

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  25. Erik says:

    Uh, of course I have vitrolic hate towards the Conservatives.  Why wouldn’t I?  There are many groups I have a hatred towards.  The KKK, Westboro Baptists, and Conservatives.  Really, go read Conservapedia to really get a good insight into these book burning, racist, corporate coruption enabling, warmongers beliefs.

     

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  26. Erik says:

    Trying to protect a murder eh Jack?  I guess pondsucm sticks to pondscum.  Sorry though, Evan is responsible for his actions and Evan is going to pay for them.  Video games didn’t pull the trigger he did.  So give it up loser.  Go to Thailand and pat them on the back, maybe they will give you some free kids to fuck.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  27. deuxhero says:

    he also said he plans to cut taxes for 95% of people, when 40% don’t pay taxes to cut.

     

     

    He is a politican.

  28. Good Lord says:

    "A conservative would think you have the right to choose your meals, while a liberal would want warning labels on fatty foods and maybe even consider it a form of child abuse to let a child eat too many cheezeburgers.  A liberal would let you light up a joint, but then condemn you for smoking a cigarette."

    This could not be further from the truth, but go right ahead fooling yourself into thinking that all liberals just want to take your rights and your fun away. I mean, they’re anti-morality, right? Nothing but abortions and gay orgies and drug overdoses, 24/7! You’ve got those dirty libs pegged!

  29. Thomas McKenna says:

     Wrong.  From friends in the military.  I think they keep more track of something like that then any of the news sources out there.

  30. Thomas McKenna says:

    I used to argue with gun regulators for fun a few months ago or so.  The argument is dumb, but it does come up fairly often.

  31. Da1rocky says:

    I do hope that you know that Obama is smarter than associating himself with you. Though I know you wouldnt have a chance of making yourself an acquaintance. Still your actions when you were a lawyer were quite ludicrous and lewd. I have a question for you Mr. Thompson. If the Media like Games and movies do make people into killers, then why isnt Japan all destroyed. After all they have a high level of violent and sexual media in the country?
    Post our names? What for? Because you do? Doesnt matter. We dont pretend to be others.

  32. Father Time says:

    Economics 101 says that if you set a price ceiling below market value you will get a shortage. Gas is dropping on it’s own right now but if you were to have a price ceiling at say $1.50 you’d get a shortage because the gas is worth more than that. If you set it at above market value then it does nothing.

    —————————————————-

    "What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" – Tasmanian devil

  33. jkdjr25 says:

    Except that you mean for people to think that she and the President elect endorse you, which they don’t. I believe that’s called fraud, which I know is illegal.

    You are actually soliciting your legal advice to the man in the letter, which I’m pretty sure is expressly illegal since you aren’t a lawyer.

    You don’t care about injustice you care about your legacy, or lack there-of; we’ve known this for years. Speaking of which I’m sure you’ll be ready to come forward about your troubled history to the man you wrote. After all he does deserve to know the source of the legal advice you’re trying to give.

    Really now? See I’m inclined to believe the opposite. While I may not be as formally educated as some I do happen to read quite a bit, in addition to my gaming, and I’m aware of things you don’t seem to be. For example this little thing called thou shalt not bare false witness I’m pretty sure that I know that’s in the Ten Commandments. Were you aware of that one or do you ascribe to the "thou shalt not bare false witness, unless you have a good enough reason" belief?

  34. Father Time says:

    Those bastards, well I guess in their defense (don’t know why I feel so obliged to defend them) it’s mostly conservative groups that go crying to the FCC whenever there’s something on TV they don’t like.

    I’ve never heard the argument ‘it’s the police’s job to defend you’ it seems such a stupid argument.

    —————————————————-

    "What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" – Tasmanian devil

  35. Thomas McKenna says:

    Actually, their argument is usually a bit of both on the gun control issue.  When asked "why not just defend yourself" they usually say that it’s the job of the police to do so.  I think that is the major flaw in their argument, so that’s the part that I usually stick to.

    Also, I never mentioned Obama with the fairness doctrine in my last post.  I simply said that the Democratic party as a whole supports it. 

    Also of note worth mentioning, seeing how it was brought up by Father Time:  The FCC was put in place by the Democratic Party.

  36. Arell says:

    "Funny when I hear people say they want to legalize certain drugs, or gay marraige because it’s none of their business what people do, they usually get called liberals."

    That’s just it.  Liberals are only open to certain types of things, if they believe it won’t harm anyone else.  It’s just that their definition of "harm" is different from conservatives.

    A Liberal would think gay marriage is ok, while conservatives think it would corrupt family values.  A conservative would think you have the right to choose your meals, while a liberal would want warning labels on fatty foods and maybe even consider it a form of child abuse to let a child eat too many cheezeburgers.  A liberal would let you light up a joint, but then condemn you for smoking a cigarette.

    Simply put, both conservatives and liberals would have reasons to try and regulate games.  A conservative could think they are a corrupting influence on values, while a liberal could think that they cause psychological issues.  Either way, the liberal and the conservative would think they’re in the right to tell you whether you can play that game or not, or if you can buy it for your child or not.

  37. Father Time says:

    Dems like gun control on the mistaken impression that it reduces crime, not because they think they can protect you better. And I think it’s been well established that every breed of politician likes to bash games when it suits them.

    And the Fairness Doctrine like most of the FCC, is an unacceptable breach of the first amendment, but Obama said he doesn’t support the fairness doctrine.

    —————————————————-

    "What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" – Tasmanian devil

  38. Kincyr says:

    exactly. it’s not like he said to get rid of them, and whenever I’m done playing, I usually put the controller away rather than leave it on the floor in the middle of the room.

    岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

  39. Thomas McKenna says:

     Detailed reports on the recent economy crash gives the blame to dozens of factors, and not just a singular source.  Banks were at fault for giving adjustable rate loans out to anyone regardless of income or credit history.  House buyers were guilty for buying houses that are outside of their financial means.  Realtors were guilty for trying to sell the most expensive houses they could rather than the best houses for their customers.  The blame lies with everyone, not just some rich fat-cats and not some singular politician nor political party.

  40. Thomas McKenna says:

     And Obama has stated that he plans for the Iraq war to go on for an undefinable period of time.  You’re arguments are nothing but vitriolic hate towards conservatives without any consideration of how much you’re statements contradict your own candidate.  The dems were the ones to bailout most of the companies that died in the latest market dive (like fannie may), not the republicans.  It was Pelosi who was the driving force behind the bailout bill, and it was Obama (and not McCain) who agreed to the original version of the bill which had no restrictions on the executive in its spending.  So….how exactly will Obama stop the so called "wall street welfare?"

  41. Spartan says:


    This thread is too damn funny. FTW! Anyway, what about those of us over 18 that play games? What can we look forward to with Obama’s administration? Parents need to parent and do some homework for themselves. The government has more important things to worry about then the entertainment industry and minors…

    —————————————————————————

    "The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" – Herodotus

  42. Thomas McKenna says:

    Last I checked, the Dems were guilty of being Nanny State, cult of family values, censormongers as well.  They want to take away your guns because they can protect you better.  They also support the banning or censoring of games when it suits them (see Hillary and Liberman).  They support the fairness doctrine, which seeks to curb conservative speech on talk radio and other areas.  In fact, if you support the Democratic party, then you’re being fairly hypocritical saying such things to D.S.

    And before you try and jump down my throat for being a slave to the republican party, or something around those lines, I’m practically a full on Libertarian, so fuck off.

  43. Father Time says:

    A V-Chip requires a four digit code which has 10000 different possibilities. If a kid orders a game with a credit card then when the bill comes it should serve as a clear signal that the kid bought the game to any parent who’s paying attention. Oh and some states all reayd require game stores to maintain a ratings board. Anecdotal evidence we got says it doesn’t always work (but then again nobody talks about the times if/when they work).

    —————————————————-

    "What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" – Tasmanian devil

  44. Wolvenmoon says:

    No one seems to realize, in our government and media, that there is NO security that is not broken trivially that relies on an "everyone but" strategy.

    What does this mean? Parents have to start watching what their kids buy. Sorry, there’s no way to stop them from accessing it. A v-chip is trivial to get around, the rating system? Charge up a visa at wal-mart and order offline. "Yes I’m over 18."

    Where is the industry responsible?

    The ESRB does NOT give consistant ratings to content. A new board needs to be made with a more concise rating system, and a more thorough examination of the game. Video game companies should also be rating to the MOST SENSITIVE CONSUMERS. This doesn’t mean let jack thompson rate the games, as he’s not a consumer of them. I’d propose something like this:

    G – general audience, safe for anyone

    E – Everyone, animated violence (Think cartoon network’s superhero shows)

    Then add two ratings, one for violent content and one for sexual content, maybe even just use a numbering system. Nothing too complex. Then require game retailers and places that sell used games to maintain an explanation board.

    </rambling>

     

    Regardless, asociating all gamers with underachievers is a huge mistake. Instead of considering our students work at minimum 40 hour weeks in class and are expected to spend another 20 hours a week out of class MINIMUM, and looking at our failing public school system, we have nutjobs like jack thompson.

    So before branding gamers ‘idiots’, look at what they do to their games.

    Look at oblivion, morrowind, unreal tournament, garry’s mod, rome total war, and all the other moddable games. It takes many patient, methodical, INTELLIGENT minds to take the hours upon hours to self teach the skills to make these mods.

    I’d like to give anyone who thinks these games are for underachievers a few moments in medieval total war or garry’s mod with wiremod on it. They’d run away crying.

    Though I hate to admit console gamers don’t do nearly as much.

     

  45. urutapu says:

    Wow, people sure are blowing up this "put away the video games" thing.

    He meant take the time to vote. If that wording set you off, imagine he had said "turn off the TV" or something apparently less flammable.

  46. deuxhero says:

    uh, 1.a lot are against it when it is rationed and provideds a horrible quality of care (sounds like a lot of goverment programs acctualy…) 2.how many are for uncondtional surender? 3.No, it was goverment regulation and programs that caused this. The "community reinvestment act" forced banks to make loans that would not be repaided to them, then Fannie and Freddie came along and said "we’ll buy these loans" and when you have a giant goverment sponsered group with CEO’s  (who LTIC were close to Obama and donated quite a bit too him)that cook books to fraudlently show profits in order to get big bonus AND a large portion of assets in something that is shaky on the prospect of return at best, it falling appart was only a matter of time. Conveintly said act and goverment sposered companys…

    .

  47. Father Time says:

    I just thought of something, if President Obama (or any president for that matter) considers game regulation surely someone would be there to tell them about their sucsess rates in the courts right?

    Obama doesn’t seem like he would continue trying for legislation once he realizes the likelyhood of it passing. Now if this was Hillary we were talking about …

    —————————————————-

    "What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" – Tasmanian devil

  48. Father Time says:

    Funny when I hear people say they want to legalize certain drugs, or gay marraige because it’s none of their business what people do, they usually get called liberals. I think the word’s been mangled so much nobody knows what it means anymore.

    Same with conservative. A lot of people say they’re true conservatives and when they tell me what that means it sounds a bit like diet libertarian.

    I just forget those two labels entirely myself. Funny though that hippie, fundamentalist and libertarian still mean the same exact thing (not trying to compare the three, I agree with libertarians myself about 65% of the time).

    —————————————————-

    "What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" – Tasmanian devil

  49. Father Time says:

    "Price control, hm…with that, we could prevent the cost of gas from going back up past $4.00 a gallon."

    And then we’d have a gas shortage, wouldn’t that be just perfect.

    "We’re now in a massive economic crisis because of deregulation."

    You got a source on that?

    —————————————————-

    "What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" – Tasmanian devil

  50. Keddren says:

    In June 2008, Barack Obama‘s presidential campaign said that he "does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," but that he "considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible," adding, "That is why Senator Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.".

    Really?

  51. Father Time says:

    " I DO care when state morality leglislation is shot down in court because some Liberal judge pulled a "right" out of his ass, and I do care when morality legislation gets put on the Federal level (and yes, the Dems do it too)."

    Wait so you get peeved when state laws can’t legislate morality but you also get peeved when the federal government legislates morality?

    I guess that’s reasonable but tell me what rights should be left up to the states and what rights should be under the 9th amendment?

    Oh and

    "If that’s what the people want, then so long as none of the Constitutional rights is broken, then I don’t care"

    Are you implying that you support the FCC regulating content more than they do now? Under the free market if most people wanted to see family friendly TV then most stations would show family friendly TV or the the ones that did show family friendly TV would get really high ratings. There would be no need for the FCC to say ‘someone must put out family friendly TV’ if their only goal was to ensure family friendly TV existed.

    Although let’s take a hypothetical situation. The FCC is abolished tomorrow (and there was much rejoicing), netowrks can produce and put on almost whatever content they want onto TV when they want to. If only a small amount of people wanted to see nasty stuff on TV the networks would realise this and would voluntarily stop putting it on because it wouldn’t make good business sense. If you want an indication of what people want the free market is great at that.

    Although you’d probably be able figure all that out by yourself.

    —————————————————-

    "What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" – Tasmanian devil

  52. Father Time says:

    Erik please stop talking or at least stop using ad hominem attacks. It makes all of us who lean slightly left look bad.

    —————————————————-

    "What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" – Tasmanian devil

  53. Austin_Lewis says:

    I never said it was the poor people who crashed it; I said it was the democrats who called racism when people suggested regulating it.  Look at Mr. Raines, he made off with 240 million dollars.

    No, the low income people just fucked up their own credit rating.

  54. Monte says:

     I vaguely recall reading that around the time the librarian was fired, Palin also fired like about a half dozen other people on what seemed to be "not giving her their full support" with what seemed to be no regard to how good or bad they did their job… throw that in with the idea that she gave government jobs to old high school classmates who did not seem to have even the minimal qualifications for such jobs and the picture i paint of Palin is someone who does not want to be questioned and prefers to surround herself with "yes men" so she gets as little challenge as possible when she wants to do something… she puts loyalty before actual ability and qualifications

    So perhaps the book banning question WAS purely hypothetical and Palin didn’t actually have plans to ban books… the reason she initially fired the librarian was not so much because of a book banning issue, but because she would not roll over for Palin… i think the only reason she did not stay fired was because their was because a lot of people spoke up in her behalf; though it has been a long time since i looked into such things

    its one the reasons i didn’t trust that Personal Board to investigate her… sure 2 of the 3 came from the previous administration, but i’m fairly convinced that the only reason they weren’t replaced is because Palin felt they were loyal to her… i think i even recall hearing that one of those 2 contributed money to her or mccain after she became the vp (though that is something i am very uncertain about; could just be a rumor for all i remember)… though maybe its just a coincidence that the investigator they hired to investigate Palin came from a firm that worked for Palin on the big hockey arena job back when she was mayor…

  55. jkdjr25 says:

    Actually it wasn’t an influx of lower income people that crashed the housing market. It was an abuse of the rules by wealthy nitwits who got greedy and wanted to "flip" houses and property. Surprise, surprise the bubble popped because of abuses in the system, not from the people who actually played by the rules in a legitimate fashion.

  56. Austin_Lewis says:

    Funny thing about the fairness doctrine, it only works one way.  Stations with conservative talkshows have to make changes, but the few stations with liberal talkshows don’t have to let conservatives on the radio.

  57. Austin_Lewis says:

    I’m against healthcare for the children, especially when it defines child as someone from 0-25 years old and would include illegal immigrants. 

    Also, in 2003 and 2004, the Republicans and a few Democrats tried to regulate the banks, but the majority of Democrats said they were just trying to keep minorities from owning property.  Glad that played out well.

  58. Mr. Stodern says:

    I don’t think Obama’s going to put any kind of concentration on games. He has way too much on his plate as it is.

  59. jkdjr25 says:

    Because 51% of the people were totally against health care for children, for keeping our troops in Iraq, and for deregulating everything to the point where the economy collapses because there’s not more rules to govern how business is run.

  60. Arell says:

    It’s actually pretty hard to tell what a politician will do based simply on thier Party affiliation or social leanings.  You basically have to wait until they do something, to get a gauge on how they’d respond to other issues down the line.

    Republicans – Used to be the Party of small government, but that’s a thing of the past.  They spend as much money as Democrats anymore.  They also have to play to their Christian base, since they’d be completely ruined without them.  So it’s a toss-up.  A Republican might try to regulate or cencor games to appease their religious constituants, but then again they’re just as likely to think they shouldn’t interfere with free enterprise.

    Democrats – They have a hard time saying no to a new government program, so if a Dem decides games are bad, then they might try to regulate them.  But at the same time, they’re "generally" more open to new formats and social change, so they might already be a part of the gamer generation.  Again, a toss-up.  It’s different from one Dem to the next.

    Conservatives – They hate people telling them what they can do, but don’t mind telling others what to do if they don’t agree or understnad.  So a conservative would either consider the sales of games to be none of thier business, or would believe they’re undermining "core moral values."  You can’t really tell which way they’d go until they move.

    Liberals – They know better than you about how to live your life (actually not that much different from conservatives, only without the religous slant), so they’re not above sticking their fingers into regulation if they think it’s for the "greater good".  But they also take free speech very seriously.  How a liberal will react to games is anyone’s guess.

    So you see, base your predictions on a person’s record and words.  Not on their labels.

  61. jkdjr25 says:

    Actually I did give reason with respect to the power of veto. You have to talk about the historic use of veto power by previous Presidents in order to gain the right perspective on the matter. 

    This isn’t about left wing or right wing it’s about what’s best for the country. Millions of people, myself included, felt that Obama was better for the country at this point in time than the Republicans. You are right in that we don’t know how he’ll govern, but then we didn’t know how President Bush would govern either. Presidents have been good and bad and only time and history will tell if Obama falls into one category or the other.

    I don’t get the censor-crat vibe from Obama that I do from some others but as with so many other things, only time will tell if I’m right or wrong.

    More to the point it’s refreshing to see someone saying what many of us in the gaming community have been saying for years. That government isn’t the solution to every problem and government can’t help parents raise their children. 

    To your lat "point" McCain voted 90% of the time with President Bush. So where were you going with this?

  62. Nekowolf says:

    *yawn* Still a failed argument. The Republicans have no progressive taxes, as McCain boasted cutting taxes to all classes, which is  a terrible idea; after all, we’re in a multi-billion dollar debt, that money has to be collected from someone. Oh right. He wanted to tax health insurance, in the hope people would buy their own health insurance instead of getting it from an employer.

    States SHOULDN’T decide on social issues. Social issues are issues of the people, and should be applied to everyone of the nation. I WOULD use the example of, let’s say I was gay and I get married, then I’m not married no more anywhere else out side of Massachusetts, but who knows. Maybe the gays are too liberal for you. The point being why should there be inequality within the States themselves.

    Closed borders? Well…maybe if we actually had a decent way of getting into the nation. You could be waiting 10, 15, more years just to be accepted as a legal immigrant.

    Eurocrat, that’s funny. Except it’s full of shit. Was it not said that all men are created equal? Does it not say we have the freedom of religion? So they want to ban gays from the same rights as straights, to push Christian "traditional values" into our lives? Real Constitutional. Sure, you might make the comeback that "But the Democrats! CENSORSHIP!" Well hold your ass there. Here’s a thought for you. Who’s more likely to push banning teaching evolution in schools? Republicans, because it’s not "Christian" and is that not educational censoreship? And don’t give me any bullshit about teaching it’s "just a theory" cause guess what? Techically, the gravity is just a theory. Physics are just theories. I guess we should teach ALL of science is one big theory.

    And one other things, I wonder who’d be more against us witches. Hmmm, let me think…Oh, Republicans, cause apparently we’re the devil-worshipping horrors that are to burn for eternity in the fires of Hell.

    In a way, you’re right on the last one. As little? Try none. Do you know what happened? Well, apparently, since you don’t watch the media, you don’t. We’re now in a massive economic crisis because of deregulation. Oh yeah, more deregulation all around!

    Now, let’s look…

    Price control, hm…with that, we could prevent the cost of gas from going back up past $4.00 a gallon.

    The Fairness Doctrine: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA6573406.html

    Tax credits…well, that one doesn’t make much sense. Do you even know what a tax credit is? "Tax benefits, granted for engaging in particular activities, that are subtracted on a dollar for dollar basis, from taxes owed." So they want the rich to get tax credits, such as donating to a charity, and give that to the poor? You, sir, apparently have no idea what you are saying. That argument right there is just a big load of bullshit.

    Bailout, okay, I will say I do not support it.

    Hate speech laws, which ones are you talking about?

    And finally, economic micromanagement, I don’t know enough to take a stand on this.

  63. Erik says:

    And McCain does know how foreign relations work?  Really now?  Would that include continuing this pointless, farce of a war in Iraq now?  I don’t think you realise it.  But the GOP has put our foreign relations in the shitter.  As far as economies go, I’m glad Obama is going to stop the Walstreet welfare that serves only to make rich assholes richer.  If some fuck has to sell one of his yachts and lose his bakers dozen of them I shan’t not shed a tear.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  64. Dark Sovereign says:

    It’s not my ideal choice. I would have preferred Barr, but he had no chance of winning. I wasn’t swinging to Obama, because he has yet to show that he has any idea how economies, militaries, schools, or foreign relations work.

  65. Dark Sovereign says:

    You give no reason why though. You just say it can’t, and leave it at that. Obama has voted 97% with the Democrats. He has yet to seperate himself from them on any major issue. How does any of that have anything to do with Bush? 

  66. deuxhero says:

    100 days is really generous… His party alreddy plans to ban off shore drilling when the new congress comes about, even though the vast majority of the US wants it.

  67. Dark Sovereign says:

    If that’s what the people want, then so long as none of the Constitutional rights is broken, then I don’t care. I DO care when state morality leglislation is shot down in court because some Liberal judge pulled a "right" out of his ass, and I do care when morality legislation gets put on the Federal level (and yes, the Dems do it too). I know about my end of the spectrum, thank you, but we are not all the same. Like, I admit, those on the other end of the spectrum are not all the same.

  68. deuxhero says:

    Remember that Obama wants to reimpose the fairness doctrine (exclusively on radio, because it is the only area of media where conservatives are the majority, while leaveing TV alone, because the majority of the networks are left leaning) to silence his foes.

     

     

    He doesn’t care for the first amendment there, he won’t care with videogames.

  69. Erik says:

    Once again based on them thinking that everyone should be held to their Cult of Family Values.  I’m not sure if you have paid enough attention to those on your end of the political spectrum.  But if it were up to them all media would be on the insipid level of PAX tv.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  70. jkdjr25 says:

    It’s not shoehorning if you’re comparing what was to what may be. Thinking about the possibilities of what President-elect Obama may or may not veto can’t be discussed rationally without the contrast of the veto records of the Presidents before him.

    Your rancor on this issue really isn’t necessary.

  71. Dark Sovereign says:

    Really? Based on what? Opposition to progressive tax schemes? Belief that States should decide social issues? Belief in closed borders? Belief that the Constitution should be the defining law of the land, instead of what some eaurocrat deems fair? Belief that the government should have as little involvement in economic affairs as possible?

    Whereas, on the left-wing, Democrat side, we have price controls, the Fairness Doctrine, tax credits taken from the rich and given to the poor, bailouts, hate speech laws, and economic mircromanagement. Some Republicans have taken these stances, and they should know they have my undying hatred, but these are mainly the Democrats, not Republicans. And let’s not forget that the liberals are also responsible for racial quotas and union handouts.

  72. Nekowolf says:

    This is funny. Irony.

    And…

    "You spout stereotypes and bigotry" and yet, you just did that yourself. Your argument is a failure. A fallacy.

    Edit: Also, though, if you want to be technical, I’d say "nanny state" is more right-wing than left-wing.

  73. Erik says:

    You hate Bush but yet voted for someone with a near identical voting record?  Peculiar.  But yes, I voted for Obama.  I would have prefered Kerry or Gore, but those ships have sailed.  But just what reason would anyone have for voting for someone who is the yes-man to the President with an approval rating below that of Nixon?

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  74. Dark Sovereign says:

    I do not select who I support based on Party. I hate Bush, but despised Kerry and Gore more. Obama’s a parasite, so I selected McCain, an ass, but the only one likely to get elected besides Obama. Again, what reason do you have to shoehorn Bush into discussions about Obama’s possible veto record? Besides the obvious left-wing stupidity of the "Bush! So there!" response? 

  75. Erik says:

    I try my hardest to do so at least.  Someone has to stand up against you Nanny State, cult of family values, Republican, censormongers now don’t they?

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  76. Thomas McKenna says:

     You fail to mention in there that he allowed through both republican sponsored bills as well as democrat sponsored bills during that time, and also in that time he spent more money on liberal causes than Clinton ever did.

  77. Erik says:

    Yes your misinformed state.  Every post you make is just right wing douchbaggery propoganda.  But again, keep it up.  I need my laughs since Jack got banned.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  78. Erik says:

    "Go read the story again."

    Okay.

    "Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn’t be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor."

    Nope.  Still hasn’t changed since I read it.  But it doesn’t matter at this point McCain and his Nanny-State running mate lost.  Guess people didn’t want a 3rd term of Bush.

     

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  79. Dark Sovereign says:

    My misinformed state? You spout stereotypes and bigotry, just like O’Reiley or Olberman. I search the web. Maybe I’ll stumble onto a network site, maybe not, but I get my news.

  80. Dark Sovereign says:

    Bush’s veto record is irrelevant to the record of Obama. It takes some major shoehorning to work Bush in there, too.

  81. Erik says:

    You don’t watch them then?  So I take it your misinformed state is due to an inborn ineptitude?  A savant of failure as it were.  Really though.  You are GPs Limbaugh.  And you make me laugh just as much as that fat fuck does, so that is something at least.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  82. Dark Sovereign says:

    Go read the story again. She never asked how she would go about banning books. She asked how the librarian would respond if somebody (or her) asked her to remove a book found to be offensive. Again, if she wanted to, she might have just filed a request form. She didn’t, and the librarian wasn’t fired over the issue. You, the librarian, and the propaganda that is the mainstream news networks added that she wanted to. Imbeciles in far-left blogs trupeted the story, because it fits into their preconcieved and ignorant notions of what Republicans are like.

  83. Bill says:

      I hope your right Uh… but my natural cynicism doubts it.

      I am willing to bet that within his first 100 days in office President Obama will have passed more than one law that a minimum of 51% of the country openly opposes.  Then that participatory government you mentioned will be right out the window.

      The Democrat Party has been out of power for too long to let a little thing like the "Will of the People" stand in their way.

  84. Erik says:

    Half-truth.  She asked a librarian in the city how she could go about banning books.  When the librarian didn’t show her support for Palin, Palin tried to have her fired.  So no, she didn’t ban any books.  But it is quite clear that the desire was there.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  85. Erik says:

    Actually the question is will he go longer without a veto as Bush did with the Republican Congress.  He holds a record not since seen since Thomas Jefferson. 

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  86. Uh... says:

    I must admit that I am a little worried about possible anti-game sentiments producing attempted game legislation in a Democratic D.C. However given the circumstances and what was at stake this election, I will take on this fight, than fight another Bush administration (McCain and Palin). This is why I do not regret voting for Obama, and I also feel his anti-game rhetoric is just that–rhetoric.

    Once again I will reiterate that we must stick together and lobby congress for our rights. We elected these people, and with enough e-mails, phone calls, faxes, and letters, they will listen to us. This is the participatory government which Obama has promised the American people, and we should take him up on his offer.

  87. Erik says:

    I thought we were talking about the Zealots now.  You know the ones who burned people alive for looking at people funny.  See: The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, Fred Phelps.

    Now on the other end of the spectrum you have your tolerant and peaceful christians.  But they unfortunately are not as loud as the Zealots and therefore are overlooked.

    So, yeah.  Inquisitor Bush seems to match up pretty well with a death loving Zealot to me.  But hey, I don’t expect you to be able to tell the difference between the two groups.  Your political party was taken over by the zealots a long time ago. 

    But hey, go watch Bill O’Rilley spew some lies and vitrol.  It will make you feel better.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  88. Dark Sovereign says:

    But will he veto bad laws? That’s the burning question. If it’s proposed by Democrats, the answer is probably no.

  89. mogbert says:

    I could be wrong, but Obama doesn’t really MAKE laws, his job is to veto bad ones, isn’t it?

    In the end, he can stop bad laws, but can’t really MAKE them, so he is either neutral or good.

    Unfortunately, what we REALLY need to do is focus on Congress. They are where bad laws come from.

    If they make it past those two, then we need to count on the Supreme Court to stand by the Constitution.

    If that fails, then we must stand together to show that a significant portion of the adult population won’t stand for it.

    If that fails… then we have failed as a people.

  90. Dark Sovereign says:

    Go look at the number of books she supposedly tried to ban during her time in Wasilla. The number is zero. And asking a person how they would respond if somebody asked them to ban something does not constitute an attempt at a ban.

Comments are closed.