Democrats Dominate Video Game Industry’s 2009 Campaign Giving

Mid-year documents filed with the Federal Elections Commission indicate that the video game industry is currently leaning to the Democratic side of the aisle when it comes to Congressional campaign donations.

ESA PAC, the political action committee of game publishers group the Entertainment Software Association, has disbursed $12,400 to Congressional candidates so far in 2009. All but $1,000 of those funds went to Democrats or Democratic PACs. Here’s the breakdown:

  • Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) – $3,000
  • Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL) – $1,000  (Meek is running for a vacant Senate seat)
  • New Democratic Coalition PAC – $2,000
  • Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) – $2,400
  • Sen. John Thune (R-SD) – $1,000
  • Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) – $1,000
  • Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) – $1,000
  • Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) – $1,000

The contributions will be used by recipients for the 2010 mid-term elections. South Dakota’s Thune is the only Republican among those receiving ESA PAC money so far in 2009.

DOCUMENT DUMP: Grab a copy of the ESA PAC mid-year report here

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


  1. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    I have cited my claims:  Every major network news station in the United States.  You’re just not paying attention.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  2. 0
    Mr.Pat says:

    Actually, I don’t read KOS, I’ve never had a reason to, so thanks for your usual projection.

    Look, if you’ve got nothing, then just come out and admit it already; you’re not going to lose any credibility over it, mainly since you don’t have any to begin with here. Being literally the only person on this site who refuses to cite anything he claims tends to do that after all (correction, you actually share that honor with Jack, so way to go there, sunshine). You can whine and make all the excuses you want to try and weasel out of backing up your claims, it still doesn’t take away the fact that you’re intellecually dishonest and a coward to boot. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim – you made the claim, you back it up, thats how it goes. End of story.

    So again, for the third time, cite your claims or be known as the GP Liar. And if you don’t like it, back up your claims, or STFU.

  3. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    I’ve told you countless times it’s all over the news, and to check out  The only way to actually miss most of what I’ve talked about is to be an oblivious moron, only interested in checking out the Daily KOS.  You’re unwilling to look into anything I say, only because I don’t provide a direct link.  You don’t want to look, so any citation I give, you’d just crap on anyway.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  4. 0
    Mr.Pat says:

    Well if its been everywhere then you should have no problem at all citing it, unless you’re intellectually dishonest and lazy that is. After all, lest we forget, the burden of proof is on YOU for making the claim. So again:


     You’d think you’d have learned this by now, but then again I’m talking to the guy who resorts to ad-hominems when asked to prove his claims while looking for absolutely any excuse not to provide any. Par for the course when dealing with conservatives these days…

  5. 0
    Erik says:

    Rich people?  Is that your only response?  Rich people?  Really you didn’t want to bring up something relevant to, you know, normal people?  No?  You lose.

    The fact remains that that, you know, normal people in those countries can actually have an option when it comes to medical care.

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

  6. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Watch the fucking news!!!!  Obviously you’re an oblivious moron because EVERYTHING I’ve posted has been all over the news at one point or another.  And not just Fox News either.  I’m talking NY Times, WSJ, CNN, everywhere.  You’re just too much in love with the Daily KOS to pay attention, I guess.  As far as the comment I made here, there have been stories and television commercials featuring people from countries with socialist health care that had no choice but to come to America to get the health care they needed in a timely fashion.  The commercials I’ve seen have been on CNN, Fox News, Animal Planet, Nickelodeon, ABC Family, local channels, Starz/Encore, HBO and the list goes on.

    Pull your head out of your ass and pay attention to the world around you.  You might actually understand a little bit about how it works if you do.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  7. 0
    Mr.Pat says:

    In other words, you’ve got nothing. Typical.

    I suppose everyone should just label you a bald-faced liar now since you’ve yet to back up or prove a single claim you’ve ever made on this site.

  8. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Do you own a television?  Do you?  Because this has been all over television since the debate over nationalized health care started.  Open up your fucking eyes.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  9. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    My only question for you is, why is it the rich people in Canada, Britain, France, Germany, India and just about every other country with socialized health care come to America for their major medical needs?

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  10. 0
    Erik says:

    "So, you’re in support of destroying a system that provides good health care to most of America just so 30 million people can get health insurance while the rest of us lose the right to choose?"

    Yes, I am in support of a system that would give millions of people A choice.  Even if it would destroy the charade of a system we have currently in place.  But I don’t think now is the time to do it and I don’t think Obama is the person to do it either. 

    But it is ridiculous the fact that just an hour or so north where I live there is a good healthcare system.  You know with Canada being an hour north and all.  It is really ridiculous for how much we pomp and strut about being the world’s greatest nation that to find comperable health care you have to go to countries which are pretty much a shithole. 

    Do you really buy your steaming horseshit about people being free to decide what kind of health care they have?  Have you really deluded yourself into thinking that.  For millions of Americans we have but ONE freedom when it comes to health care, crawl into a gutter and fucking die.  If I ever come down with a serious illness I am not going to trouble my family with racking up bills that they nor their children or their children will be able to pay off.  I’ll solve my medical problems second amendment style.  I guess that is your affordable health care that you were refering to weren’t you?  A few cents to a bullet and the person who suffers whatever illness isn’t suffering any longer.

    So kindly shove it, and realize that you nor any of your talking heads like Limbaugh are not going to be able to convince anyone with both a brain and an income of under 50k a year.

    The government needs to get off it’s fucking ass and actually do something.  Because where I’m standing I can’t see what the government actually does that is worthwhile.  We pay them taxes, and give them our family members to go die in some third world hellhole pointlessly.  What do we get in return?  The freedom to drag our cancer ridden corpses into a ditch.

    Yeah thanks for that. 

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

  11. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    See UN security council reports, circa 2003.  France, Germany, Russia, and Kofi Annan were all paid under the table with proceeds from the oil-for-food campaign to turn a blind eye to what he was doing to his citizens.

    As far as your "invaded" comment, we did give Saddam Hussein multiple chances to step down.  We spoke to the UN for an entire year, sponsored sanctions against him and finally threatened him with said invasion.  Obviously, he cared more for himself than his people, but the United States is the bad guy, right?  I mean, all Hussein did was gas his own people and pay others to let him get away with it, while invading other countries, so America just overreacted, huh?

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  12. 0
    Erik says:

    Not fought, invaded.  As far as your France getting paid by Saddam, citation needed.

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

  13. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    By your own argument, it’s your fault we’re in Iraq.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  14. 0
    Cerabret100 says:

    you are so ignorant then i shouldn’t even bother to try and explain.

    "YOUR" representitive is the one you elected, any fault he makes is partially your own, so you have no right to be so disruptive. if yelling and booing is the best you can do, it’s a sad day indeed.

  15. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    When YOUR representative decides that he’s not going to take questions, or ignore questions altogether, then it’s the best you can do. 

    Of course, it wasn’t called being a disruptive jackass during the Bush years.  Then it was ‘partiotism’.  What a load of shit.

  16. 0
    Cerabret100 says:

    no i will not go to youtube, it is your job in this discussion to defend and support  your position, if you can’t take the time to re-link them, then why should I?

  17. 0
    Cerabret100 says:

    as retarded as linking an actor and non-expert professor of a completly different academic area as fact?

    if you’re going to be offensive go somewhere else.

  18. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Yes, it’s absolutely socialism; how long has a free market ever been able to compete with a government run health insurance system?  It’s like playing a game of monopoly where the banker can raid the bank when he feels like it, or playing a game where one player gets to change the rules.  By the way, if you pulled your head out of your ass and read the bill at all, you’d notice that the bill basically lays down a myriad of reasons why an individual can lose their own coverage and be FORCED onto government coverage, including things such as not meeting the government’s ‘standard’ for coverage, a business dropping your coverage (which most will do, as it would be far less hassle), and, my personal favorite, your coverage will be switched to government if your plan changes in any way, including adding an extra dependent, a small change in price, or a change in the type of coverage or covered procedures. 

    As for your second line of bullshit:

    To continue, people assaulted Bush’s motorcades all the time, which never seemed to get reported.  I know of FIVE instances where they were forced to use alternate routes due to protesters’ actions.  As for arresting the man if he had a handgun, absolutely not.  I support the right of ANY and ALL law-abiding citizens of this nation, whether black, white, muslim, asian, whatever, to carry a firearm, pursuant to their local laws.  And are you retarded?  There have been numerous recorded union-led attacks.  And I’m sure you would like to believe that the union assholes were ‘helping a man up who fell’; but consider the huge bruise on his chest and his ripped shirt.  That doesn’t sound like helping a man who fell to me, but maybe I’m just not stupid enough to see the world from your point of view.  By the way, most unions have histories of bascially acting like a bunch of thugs, so it’s no surprise.

    Honestly, it’s amazing how willfully retarded you can be all the time. 

  19. 0
    Mr.Pat says:

    You seem to be intentionally ignoring the content of one of the men’s sign. He wanted to, and I’m  paraphrasing here, "water the tree of liberty", a semi-famous quote originated by Jefferson. When you take the full context of the quote into effect, specifically how the tree of liberty is watered, coupled with the fact he had a loaded weapon on him, it can very, very easily be taken as a threat to the president, just as it should be.

    But do go on giving people like him a free pass on their bad, hateful decisions, and declaring absolutely everything Obama does as socialism; maybe eventually you’ll put it into perspective and understand why the Bush-worshipping folk are no longer in power.


    Have fun trying to be a real life internet tough-guy at the town hall too –  that was actually quite humorous to read.


  20. 0
    Snipzor says:

     It can’t be socialist because there is competition from the free market you sod.

    Are you serious though? Are you fucking serious, the guy brought a gun to where Obama would be, and you say the equivalent of "so what". Amazing, absolutely brilliant. If it was Bush, I bet you would have suggested they arrest the guy, and if he was Muslim, god knows what would have happened. The union is not attacking people you idiot butthurt loser. The only thing you have to suggest this is a "vicious beating" where are guy fell down, and was helped back up by the guy that might have assaulted him.

    Honestly, it is amazing how butthurt and pathetic you people are some time.

  21. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Yes, but there’s a difference between being ‘disrespectful’ and demanding accountability and answers from the people whose lifestyle YOU pay for.  These people have no right to not answer your questions.  They owe you answers, and they are beholden to you; the people are not beholden to our government, the government is beholden to WE THE PEOPLE.

  22. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    I don’t know where the links went, I had them saved (or so I thought).  However go to youtube and search town hall with the names DRIEHAUS, McCASKILL, PELOSI, and St. Louis (I can’t remember the guy’s name).  These videos are all of people ignoring the people, refusing to talk to the people, and, my personal favorite, the one from St Louis, shows some union thugs assaulting people. 

  23. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    This is absolutely socialist health care.  Or rather, socialist HEALTH INSURANCE. 

    And oh my God, what a sin; to have a firearm at an event where people have been being assaulted left and right.  I’ll be going to a town hall in a week or two, and I’m leaving my handgun in the car.  I’m not going to watch some union thug try and assault people. 

  24. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    You want to see videos of supporters of Obamacare calling detractors Nazis?  Watch Keith Olbermann.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  25. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Considering America is the country that fought Iraq, and France led the charge to keep other countries from helping us, you really don’t have much of a leg to stand on with that comment.  Every US President from Regan to Bush Jr. commited some sort of military strike against Iraq for what Hussein did.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  26. 0
    Sporge says:

    This is not just a democrat thing you know, people get kicked out of all sorts of political things for supporting the wrong side.  Hell I saw Sarah Palin after the VP Debate at my school, there were Obama supporters who got kicked out. 
    It isn’t just democrats or republicans its politicians that do this.

    Fact is if you go to a town hall meeting and refuse to be respectful you will get kicked out the same as anywhere else where you are supposed to act civilised.

  27. 0
    Cerabret100 says:

    if you can support these with videos or articles i would be quite interested. most assuredly neither side has handled this well (just look at the politician who went on her phone during a question, she said it was to call a hotline that explained the bill for a better answer, but i doubt it).  I’ve simply made the statement that those opposed could do so better, shouting over your representitive, and spouting over exaggerative statements do not, in my opinion help their cause.


    as i’ve stated before, on the actual bill, i’m willing to listen to either side before i make any opinons, it’s just that, and wishing no offence the man himself, please don’t used Chuck norris as proof.

  28. 0
    Bennett Beeny says:

    Are you suggesting that America’s government didn’t also look the other way?  Or are you suggesting that France should have taken a principled stand against US interests back then?

  29. 0
    Flamespeak says:

    I have seen footage from interviews where people opposing the reform at town hall meetings are called (I wish I was making this up) ‘terrorists’.

    I have seen another video where democrat was actively kicking people out of her town hall for stating their disapproval of her opinions before the question and answers segment for ‘being unruly’ while she stated ‘This is MY meeting.’ The odd thing was, her actions were supported by the news site covering the story.  Apparently stating your disapproval of someone’s action in an open public meeting is not tolerated these days.

    I am kind of shocked that the Democratic party has pretty much decided to stop listening to people entirely. I thought that Bush’s adminstration was bad at strong arming, but this has gone to a whole other level in the past 6 months.

  30. 0
    hayabusa75 says:

    …giving money to the wealthy?  Are you referring to the bailouts?  Because I get the impression that most of his other policies are designed to close the rich/poor gap…

    "De minimus non curat lex"

  31. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    It’s only an outline at this point, but that’s because nobody will say what, exactly, they plan on doing.  That’s because the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has said it can’t be paid for, because everything that they plan on using to pay for it won’t pay for it.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  32. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    You mean France, the country that was getting  paid under the table by Saddam Hussein to look the other way as he gassed his own people?  Yeah, that wouldn’t cause a conflict of interest.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  33. 0
    Cerabret100 says:

    I don’t know about the second part (except the fact that it isn’t socialist takeover, i agree with that), but i’m glad i’m not the only one to find citing chuck norris and that professor to be an…interesting choice to say the least.

  34. 0
    Snipzor says:

     You actually linked to a Chuck Norris article, that’s rich. Seriously, if you actually compare and put Chuck Norris and a professor in the same sentence, you (and the professor) have no credibility.

    Yeah, your side has so much credibility, like those two guys who brought guns to the townhalls. Or those idiots who drown out free speech by yelling. Or those other morons who complain about socialist healthcare (Which it isn’t) while they have Medicare. Real credible, to actually have a debate, we need people who aren’t total retards to combat healthcare reform. You know, people who don’t go on to complain about "death panels".

  35. 0
    Cerabret100 says:

    and to insinuate people against the program were doing that is wrong, but i have provided proof it is those against the bill maintaining this nazi analogy against the president and reform supporters albiet they are the more fringe opponents.

    and his degree is irrelevent? that can’t be further from the truth, why should i believe a man speaking in an area different from his academic area of expertise, and an actor?

    if so many people are against this, and i know there are, which is fine, then why cant you link an actual expert? someone in the medical, political, or legal field, it doesn’t help your case to do other wise.

    whether or not i actually want this? i don’t know, i haven’t really looked at the bill and i refuse to take a position until i know more.

    If you’re against it, that’s fine, i don’t mind opponents of the bill. i just find some of their conduct innappropriate. and when supporting you’re position, draw on more reputable sources.

  36. 0
    Erik says:

    Fail.  No my point about Fox News winning a court case to have the right to lie on the air is in relation to Fox news winning a court case to lie on the air.

    I don’t care if they faun over Obama or not.  I really don’t give a shit about him.  He is far too interested in giving money to the wealthy for me to give a fuck about him.  As I am not wealthy.

    As far as people watching Fox News to escape lies and bias my reply is thusly: What the fuck are you smoking?

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

  37. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    For your first point, google Nancy Pelosi and the phrases Nazi or Swastika.  You see, at the very first town hall meeting, when it became apparent that this new ‘health insurance reform’ bill wouldn’t go down easy, Nancy Pelosi made a statement suggesting people were showing up to the meetings with swastika signs and the like.  The same has been said by other congresspersons and senators since. 

    Also, there are many more stating resistance against the bill.  Sadly, a lot of those articles don’t seem to get printed publicly, and so I’m sure if I started linking you to the blog that host them, we’d be in another discussion about validity. There appear to be quite a few million people angry about the whole thing, however, especially if you’ve checked certain polls lately. 

    As for what his degree is in, it’s barely relevant.  The fact is, the man (and Chuck) are obviously at least somewhat intelligent.  It doesn’t take a genius to understand the bill.  Hell, they even present you with the passages. 

    Of course, I understand that a lot of people don’t care to educate themselves at all on the bill, and who would?  It’s over a thousand pages of dry boring bullshit.  But maybe you should read some of it.  I guarantee, if you can understand it, you’ll find that it’s not something that you want, unless you like the idea of an Orwellian big brother.

  38. 0
    Erik says:

    But not all of them have fought the legal system to do so now have they?  Of course I can only imagine that you subscribe to the beliefs of Conservapedia which calls Fox News a "moderate" news channel.

    Also, something I’ve wanted someone from your side of the political spectrum to say.  Now repeat after me:  France was right about Iraq.


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

  39. 0
    Cerabret100 says:

    The only people i’ve seen called nazi’s are people supporting the bill, in direct conflict with you’re statement. in fact, taken from:

    "Rush Limbaugh and those invoking the Nazi analogy to attack President Barack Obama’s effort to reform health care in America"

    also if the only two people stating these are one professor of Classics (sorry, not familiar with that term) and chuck norris, then i have a hard time believe it means what they interpret it as. in fact, the professor himself states in your link

    "This is the evaluation of someone who is neither a physician nor a legal professional"

    that type of citation wouldn’t have been allowed in my writing class.


    so how can i take you’re other statements seriously?

  40. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    To start with, the ‘swastika thing’ seems to be more of a faked by the democrat party action, what with an OBAMA SUPPORTER being the one to carry the sign before a townhall meeting, then handing out pro-healthcare reform literature after the meeting.

    The real issue here is that they are denying what’s in the bill that is circulating around (the current bill), and calling anyone who disagrees or dares to challenge them for lying nazis.  McCaskill was basically told that no one in her audience trusted her.  Driehaus told a woman that he didn’t care to hear her opinion.  As for the bill itself, go google John David Lewis, a Duke University Prof. of Classics, to see what he found in it.  Or you can ask Chuck Norris.  They both found some fairly disturbing things.

    But the real problem here is that it seems the government no longer feels beholden to its people, and is making some extremely mad grabs for power.  What’s even worse, however, is that the vast majority of media outlets are just regurgitating Obama’s party line; anyone who disagrees is a nazi, these people don’t represent America, they’re ‘astroturfed’ (a practice commonly used by Obama), etc., etc.

    I think my favorite thing about this whole health care bill ‘debate’, aside from the obvious inability of anyone who is privy to it to actually DEFEND it, is the fact that the Democrats have quickly changed faces from their attitude to our last president.  It used to be ‘oh, every American should question the government’.  Now it’s seen that questioning people like Pelosi, McCaskill, Scott, Reid, etc. is being divisive and disruptive.  The whole thing reeks of bullshit, and they can’t even defend the bill as it stands.

    And because I know some of you are too lazy to use google:


  41. 0
    Cerabret100 says:

    I actually have just recently turned on CNN, and i think a lot of protesters are jumping the gun a bit.  as far as i can tell, and feel free to point in the direction of something saying otherwise, the health care reform at the moment seems to be a goal, and an outline, nothing in stone or being definite, yet people are screaming we’re going to become socialist russia, and painting swastika’s on the office of reform supporters. i don’t really feel informed enough to argue for or against the reform, but some of these people screaming at the town hall meetings need to tone down the yelling and booing, it’s just rude.

    yes the swastika thing is just a fringe action, but it makes the loudest splash.

  42. 0
    Arcanagos says:

    Word to the wise: before you argue with kefka, keep in mind he’s the same guy that regularly posts tinfoil hat/off-topic/completely ludicrous theories here (no, he’s not JT though).  Remember a few days ago when he went into a rant about gay marriage on the sexism in gaming article (an article that had NOTHING to do with gay marriage).  In short: he’s nuts, dont even bother trying to argue with him

    "Go ahead and hate your neighbor, go ahead and cheat a friend. Do it in the name of Heaven, Jack Thompson’ll justify it in the end." – nightwng2000

  43. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Have you turned on the news lately?  They’re basically all humping Obama’s leg while suggesting that anyone against his idiotic healthcare bill is a Nazi.  Yeah, that’s a great group of news agencies, I tell you what.

  44. 0
    Godkarmachine says:

    So they see past the lies of the other stations but not Fox? They must be awfully stupid.

    But really? Because the other news stations don’t say the things you want to hear, they’re all humping Obama’s leg?

    – Stand back! I have an opinion, and I’m not afraid to use it.

  45. 0
    Neo_DrKefka says:

     Ah here we go. Because Fox News isn’t to the left or doesn’t fan over Obama they are of course evil but if they were more like MSNBC and admitted on air that they get funny feelings down their leg for the choosen one then yeah Fox News would be more fair right? 

    Besides Fox News ratings keep going up well every other station goes down, I wonder why? Maybe the American people see past the lies of the other channels and are stick of watching the same thing or bias. 

    In the 50s the News was very conservative but to say the 90s and 00s were not to a far to the left you would be lying to yourself. 

  46. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Oh, you mean the same channel that claimed that there was a protester carrying a Republican sign depicting Obama as Hitler?  The same channel that missed out on him handing out Pro-Obama literature later? 

    Every channel seems to be lying to the viewers today. 

    By the way, the vast majority of those signs depicting Obama as hitler have a lovely website listed at the bottom.  The website of Mr. LAROUCHE: A DEMOCRAT.

  47. 0
    Erik says:

    The news channel that fought for it’s legal right to lie to it’s viewer’s correct?

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

  48. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Obama, like every politician, is a slave to insurance and banks.  For all his talk about how he was so different, how he wasn’t going to let lobbyists work for him etc., he’s just as bad, if not worse, than all the rest.  For all his talk of change and hope and transparency and actually reading bills before they pass and letting the American people look at them, he’s sure ended up being full of shit.  By the way, the government already provides health care. 

    So, you’re in support of destroying a system that provides good health care to most of America just so 30 million people can get health insurance while the rest of us lose the right to choose? You want to make health care and insurance affordable? How about some tort reform? How about we make it so doctors don’t have to spend half of their income on malpractice insurance, and so people can’t waste time and money with frivolous lawsuits?  That would DRASTICALLY LOWER a lot of costs. And while we’re at it, let’s get Obama to start stating facts about the bill and the health care industry as a whole.  For example, the whole ‘a doctor gets 30,000 dollars for cutting off a foot’ bullshit.  I know doctors and I know chiropractors, and they say they don’t get near that for anything they can think of.  So how about Obama stops making shit up.

    By the way, most people can get on board with medicare or medicade.  If not, there are plenty of free clinics and whatnot around this country.  Sure, you won’t get the quality of care that someone who has good health insurance gets, but its better than getting nothing.

    Your signature says ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom.  Never has that been so obvious than with Barack Obama and his health care push.  In America, the PEOPLE, as individuals, are free to decide what kind of health insurance they want.  If you have a full time job, you can afford health care.  If you can’t afford health care, there are clinics, there are private organizations, there are all sorts of groups to help you.  Don’t limit my freedom because you’re afraid to have to work to provide your own health insurance.

  49. 0
    Erik says:

    Yes I’m talking about the bailouts.  It is just ludicrious that we have to pay so Obama can line the pockets of these rich failures.  Had he not spent such a stupid amount of money already to those bozos I would be in full support of health care.  The government should provide health care.  It is about time they do something useful for the people rather than just waste money trying to legislate against free speech.

    But Obama is just trying to do too much and too fast.  I want health care, but I can’t support it at the current time.

    As for the other side of the isle.  Stop trying to convince people with no medical options that they will lose options with this health care system.  For many people if they had one option, then that would be a 100% increase in their options.  When you speak try to bear in mind that some voters make under 50K a year.

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

  50. 0
    xMrAx says:

     Yeah I know what you mean, but they are normally smaller lesser known denominations. I just really hate it when someone blames everyone in the church for what a small section does. Every organization has an extreme side to it.

  51. 0
    Sporge says:

    Clearly it wouldn’t be all churches but to deny there are people who think video games are againts religion is a bit far fetched for me, if I remember there was an entire controversy over getting kids into church with Halo and games of the like.

  52. 0
    xMrAx says:

     Its not the Churches. I go to a large sized church in Houston and we are up playing Halo 3 and WOW in the youth center, not to mention that our worship leader is a big fan of Mass Effect. 

  53. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    I know, right?  Oh, well, maybe with this, we’ll no longer have to hear about how video game developers are all racist.

    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  54. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Fox is propaganda for the right and sadly MSNBC has become so for the left…CNN is still narsisctly left leaning but more balanced in most of its shows than the other 2…. its a shame I really liked Keith but after the ed show started up any clinging to a center frame of mind seems to have gone out the window…

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!!

  55. 0
    Cerabret100 says:

    yeah, everybody think’s they’ve got the answer,  yet over half of them probably never actually do anything.

    the best you can ever hope for when discussing politics is that it remains somewhat civil.

  56. 0
    Neo_DrKefka says:

    McCain is a Liberal or Center to the left Moderate. As I have always said I have no idea why Republicans choose him to run. Did they think because he was the darling of the media and Democratic Party people would automatically vote for him? No, the minute he ran against a Democrat in the election the media turned on him and no matter how much times McCain said during the campaign "I voted against my own party" it never helped it.

    Bottom line when it came between McCain, Hillary and Obama whoever won a Democrat would come out the victor.

  57. 0
    Neo_DrKefka says:

     Because all the Video Game Legislation has been on as a majority to ban content or to impose against Free Speech Standard has been done by the Democratic Party. What they are doing is trying to buy Senators like Black Panther member Illinois State Senator Bobby Rush. 

    Overall many Republican States or Senators are not as opposed to Video Games in terms of creating a hostile environment for those who want to setup business since Republicans are pro business. However keep in mind, many far right Christians will be opposed to video games and will try to enact legislation however unlike Democrats you really can’t buy them off to counter their beliefs opposed to the Democrats who will support whoever lines their pockets with more cash.
    Also Pat Leahy is head of the powerful  United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
    Meaning the guy helps approve Judges and other officals that shape law. So they are paying him to make sure Democrats put in people that hopefully will not be too hard on the game industry.
    Also Patrick Leahy also is known for approving and voting for officials in the Judicial Branch that do not follow the law based on the Constitution rather then on empathy, personal belief and conscience which goes against the Neutrality that a Judge must have and also the oath every elected official takes.
    But this is how we got the acts like The Digital Millennium Copyright Act in which is unconstitutional by our standards but what we have in our law is that if we accept a treaty by a foreign nation it can become law and that is what happened in that instance.
    So basically when a Liberal does not like a law but cannot change it because our Constitution deems it unconstitutional they can vote on a treaty which negates our Constitution and goes around it and makes that Treaty law. So basically we had Senators who cared little for our Constitution which approved two treaties from the WTO which made The Digital Millennium Copyright Act law.
  58. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    With the massive hatred for this healthcare bill and the rapid realization of the people that a lot of democrats (like Patrick Leahy) don’t seem to care what the people have to say about much of anything, I wouldn’t be surprised to see an interesting change in ratios in 2010. 

    And why they would give Patrick Leahy money?  Or Bobby Rush?

  59. 0
    Neo_DrKefka says:

     The Democrats have a massive problem all over even here in Cook County in Chicago on the north and north west side voted for Secession in the 09 election we had there and 2010 the rest of the suberbs will vote as well.

    Plus with the average American American being insulted by the Democratic Party party calling them mods even your an older and informed voter but if your a young hippie of course you have the right to protest according to them.

    People are pissed off, all the sepending has pissed off the people who vote the most in massive numbers. 2010 you’re going to see a game changing election like you seen in 1994 when Republicans took both Houses of Congress and honestly Obama day after day is looking more like Jimmy Carter.

    Jimmy Carter because he went along Democratic Congress with horrible spending which started a worst recession then what we are in now making a very once popular President at the end of his term the most unpopular President ever.

    It terms of Poll Numbers Obama’s approval ratings are dropping Carter style. 

    But hey, if we have Republicans back in power it would be nice for the media to start reporting the news again rather then bending over backwards for Obama except of course one news channel.

  60. 0
    MechaTama31 says:

    With the republicans still in the proverbial doghouse, this makes perfect sense.  When the payoff is the same either way, you bet on the winning horse.

Leave a Reply