• profile0000 - January 25, 2012 2 p.m.

    Can't we just have Mikel Reparaz for President? Then games would be totally safe. Good article though, Coop. Great job finding all that info.
  • GhostLightning - January 25, 2012 2:55 p.m.

    Ricky Perry is a stud
  • obviouslyadouche - January 25, 2012 3:09 p.m.

    I have a hard time listening to anything newt says about morality after he wlked out on two of his wives when they were both ill.
  • Conservative_Gamer - January 25, 2012 3:47 p.m.

    Given how little videogames were mentioned in the campaigns, I don't think that gamers should have to worry about anything. Just as long as the industry continues to police itself the way it has been doing for the past +20 years, the government will stay out of the business regardless of who the next president is. If any of the candidates were to have a serious stance on the game industry, I'm sure we would all know about it as it would have been mentioned in one of the countless debated the GOP has had.
  • madman725 - January 25, 2012 3:59 p.m.

    +1 We police ourselves and there is no need for government intervention
  • codystovall - January 25, 2012 4:08 p.m.

    They all suck, the fact that their campaigns get any attention is a joke of how stupid our nation is. Keyeep govnment out o' me vidyageems!
  • ferethi - January 25, 2012 4:38 p.m.

    I didn't realize that so many people are actually still falling for Obama and his so called "policies." I would've thought that most people by now realized that he's a socialist, and will only make the country worse, especially with his under-the-table spending. Anyway, I don't really think video games are on the top of the political agenda, or really an issue at the point. As long as developers keep doing what they do, no government involvement is needed.
  • kyle94 - January 25, 2012 4:54 p.m.

    If I were you, I'd pick up a dictionary and look up the meaning of "socialist" before using it again. I'm a socialist myself, in the true sense of the word, not the "grr, evil Communist who wants to take away money and use it to buy drugs for slackers". Obama is a moderate. Hell, compared to many European politicians, he's closer to the right than the left.
  • CitizenThom - January 25, 2012 7:54 p.m.

    Socialists are communists who play semantical games... got it. Obama is a fanatic, not a moderate.
  • CitizenThom - January 25, 2012 8:01 p.m.

    If Socialists are not communists, tell me, how much is too much of an individual's earnings for the government to take from them? How much of the private citizen's money is the average politician entitled to so that they can continue spending it on drugs, hookers, mansions and other 'capitalist' indulgences?
  • kyle94 - January 25, 2012 8:58 p.m.

    According to Marx, Socialism was the step before Communism. When businesses, land, and capital are slowly brought into public control instead of private hands. Communism is a step beyond, of an utopian (and impossible) society where there are no boundaries between people. Of course, practical Communism is a totalitarian form of government where the land, factories, and capital are not put in public hands but in the hands of a few elite members of society. It's the complete opposite of Marx's theories, and yet still calls itself Communist. The entire point of Marx's Communism is that there is no ruling elite. No government. Everything is decided through a form of direct democracy. In addition, under the original theories of Socialism, wealth is not redistributed equally. It's redistributed according to the work you put into it. Simply put, the CEO of Walmart will get a couple million less, while the average employee gets more. Not to mention that Communism seeks to change the social and economic structure. Socialism doesn't want to change the social structure. Theoretical Socialism doesn't do away with classes, it just seeks to prevent workers from getting underpaid, and for people in power to get less money at the expanse of others. And considering Marx's time period, where there were very few workers' rights, it's easy to see why he designed that plan. Finally, Modern/Practically Socialism is even different from Theoretical Socialism. It's a mix of Socialism, and Capitalism. Basically, more regulations, more workers' rights, and more welfare. Higher taxes are a small price to pay for medicare and other forms of socialized medicine (which, for the most part in Europe, does work well), social security, and unemployment benefits. TL;DR: You are severally misinformed about politics and ideologies.
  • Fox_Mulder - January 25, 2012 11:07 p.m.

    kyle94 good job you absolutely owned those guys. Ignorance isn't bliss.
  • Squirrel - January 25, 2012 9:12 p.m.

    Well to be fair Obama is not an overt socialist, nor is he a moderate in the US. In Europe where semi-socialism is all the rage (less so now) yes he would be moderate. Accurately stated he is a steadfast progressive with socialistic tendencies. But the whole "left/right" schtick is just a ruse anyway. Both major parties actual want more power and bigger government, just at different paces.
  • kyle94 - January 25, 2012 9:22 p.m.

    When I referred to him as a moderate, I was talking about how (mostly early on) he did seem as if he was willing to meet in the middle on some issues, and please both parties. In the end, however, he only ended up pissing off a lot of people. So, I'd still argue that he's a bit of a moderate, but without a doubt, he's leaning more and more to the Democrats' side as of late, and going against the Republicans a lot more.
  • theschwartzb - January 29, 2012 5:36 p.m.

    "But the whole "left/right" schtick is just a ruse anyway. Both major parties actual want more power and bigger government, just at different paces. " You hit the nail square on the head with that.
  • INSURGENCYmusic - January 26, 2012 11:30 a.m.

    wth are you talking about? He's closer to the right than to the left? He's for bigger government. he's not moderate, He is a socialist. I'm not saying that being a socialist is bad, but it's illegal under the constitution. The proper right wing, is Ron paul = less government. Obama wants government everywhere, government to regulate everything, which is socialism. Just because he's a war monger, doesn't make him more right.
  • kyle94 - January 26, 2012 1:56 p.m.

    He's closer to the right than the left when compared to Europe. Europe as a whole is typically more left-wing and liberal in the US. Where people here incorrectly refer to Obama as a Socialist, in some parts of Europe, he would be called a moderate. And no, he's not a socialist. He hasn't pushed for universal healthcare (just healthcare reform and insurance reform, but still far from Universal Healthcare. Hell, it would have just backed preexisting private businesses, not put them into public control). He hasn't pushed for free education. His Wall Street Bailout was far from Socialist. Instead of restructuring and nationalizing businesses, it gave government money to private businesses, keeping them private. After the Auto Bailout, the government assumed partial control of GM, but it was a temporary move to improve the corporation, and the key-word is 'partial'. It's not nationalizing, or Socialist either. As the head of the Democratic Socialists of America, Llewellyn, said about Obama: "He's trying to save capitalism from itself rather than a radical trying to change into a new system"
  • kyle94 - January 26, 2012 2:01 p.m.

    In addition, the Constitution is flawed. It was written during the 1700s, and was important in their time, but everything under it no longer perfectly applies to the present day. That's the entire point of the ability to have amendments. To be able to change the laws of the country as time changes, for what's best. The Founding Fathers were ahead of their time in terms of democracy in much of the world, and they wanted it to stay that way, not let things be held back. Plus, don't forget Jefferson's quote: "Every generation needs a new revolution."
  • INSURGENCYmusic - January 26, 2012 9:44 p.m.

    First off, obama is a socialist for the people he works for. which ofcourse is the special interest, banking cartels, military industrial complex, Elite, etc... Those good old folks. the people that put hi in power. He runs absolutely nothing. 2nd, the constitution is the greatest document ever written. Period. what doesn't have flaws? The laws that are changing today aren't moving towards a free society, they're moving towards censorship, less freedom, big brother, etc... The middle class is getting wiped out due to the economic policies and things will continue to get worse. Because of the corruption that we are facing. Big business is buying our government and that's where the problems lay. It's really no point in arguing unless you can at least see that our government is completely corrupt and bought off by special interest. If you can't see that, then there is really no point in continuing.
  • kyle94 - January 27, 2012 4:51 a.m.

    "First off, obama is a socialist for the people he works for. which ofcourse is the special interest, banking cartels, military industrial complex, Elite, etc..." So, in other words, he's not a socialist. Because that's the complete opposite of Socialism. It's like saying "That guy is a Monarchist because he wants to kill all the kings and create a direct democracy." And I do agree that there is a lot of corruption in DC. However, if you think that it's completely corrupt, then I'm sorry, but you're just overly paranoid about your own system of government.

Showing 21-40 of 114 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.