Google+

We Recommend By ZergNet

114 comments

  • AuthorityFigure - January 25, 2012 6:40 p.m.

    Romney's going to fund a dating-sim called "Mormon Effect 2", where you marry as many wives as you can, and as 'Shepherd', you convert as many unbelievers to your flock. It's also a finance sim, where your income and expenditure are reviewed by a vast, online community.
  • mothbanquet - January 26, 2012 10:52 a.m.

    Ah yes, Shepherd - the ubiquitous main character from the 'Mass Conversion' trilogy. We have dismissed those claims...
  • NotBraze - January 25, 2012 6:20 p.m.

    A couple points worth mentioning. First of all, the Supreme Court of the United States has said that Video Games are protected speech under the First Amendment. Bottom line. End of story. Any politician can throw a fit and make promises about restricting video game sales and cracking down on the industry, but in the end they'll just be blowing smoke. The Supreme Court has ruled that they are protected speech and there's really nothing the President can do about it. Second, there is a legal definition for Obscenity, it's called the Miller test. Basically something is considered to be obscene if 1) Your average citizen would consider the work taken as a whole is meant for sexual stimulation, 2) the work shows or describes sex in a way that is offensive to the general public, *and* 3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. The key word here is "and" because something can only be obscene if it meets all three of these criteria, even two out of three is still protected by the first amendment. I think it should be obvious to all parties present why video games, as a medium, can not be considered obscene by this definition.
  • TheDCSniper - January 25, 2012 6:18 p.m.

    This is great because I had planned on basing my vote this year entirely on how a candidate feels about video games.
  • mothbanquet - January 26, 2012 7:27 a.m.

    Me too, and I ain't even American! :)
  • Nap1400 - January 25, 2012 6:08 p.m.

    Um, sorry if I'm going against most of you guys around the internet, but I believe the politicians have a point when it comes to violent video games. While you aren't actually killing anyone, it DOES desensitize people to the harms that can come from violence and such. Except I believe the parents should be the ones to handle the problem, not the politicians. That said, Newt Gingritch calling out on NINTENDO of all people for making violent video games just tells me he's misinformed. I'm not rooting for him one bit.
  • QuickSticks45 - January 25, 2012 5:53 p.m.

    I have to say this is a great idea for an article, and it was properly done too because it just gave the information straight up and staying on the topic. It's a shame that the current political officials are just so out of touch that it makes it really hard for them the pass proper judgement for things like video games and entertainment. Seeing as how I don't really like any of the current popular candidates all i have to say is Stephen Colbert 2012!
  • OddWoN ER - January 25, 2012 5:29 p.m.

    to answer the question on how to educate today's kids? videogames! i could probably learn more from that medium than half of my "qualified" teachers. i'll just say that a degree doesn't make you a qualified, fitting, or educating teacher...on of how we educate todays' kids?
  • Fuzunga - January 25, 2012 4:57 p.m.

    "goo-gobs of money"? Who says that!?
  • Squirrel - January 25, 2012 9:06 p.m.

    The President of the United States of America does, thats who!
  • Xar - January 25, 2012 4:52 p.m.

    "Despite this, we couldn’t find any evidence of him speaking for or against videogames." How about this video? g4tv.com/videos/16731/the-loop-one-on-one-with-ron-paul/ When this aired back in 2007 I was still in college and a regular viewer of G4's Attack of the Show. I was completely uninterested in politics and had never heard of Ron Paul. As I'm sure a lot of you remember, this was a tumultuous time for the video game industry. Games were constantly under attack for sexual and violent content and countless politicians were calling for federal regulations against them (Jack Thompson, I'm looking at you). Hearing Dr. Paul's logical and sensible replies about this subject was an absolute breath of fresh air. I immediately did a Google search on him and was overwhelmed by his views of liberty and limited government. I've been a supporter ever since! If you are at all concerned about the government legislating video games Ron Paul is the only candidate that won't only leave the video game industry alone but will actively stand up for it too!
  • procion - January 26, 2012 4:03 a.m.

    I agree. Ron Paul seems to favour being honest about the status quo and does not have the aura of fear that most american polititians exhume. I'm not american, and will not be voting come november, but I hope for the sake of this planet and the hidden leadership whom are turning this world to wrack and ruin that Ron Paul gets voted in. Of course if he pisses off that hidden leadership then the descendants of JFK's murderers will be finding a new patsy to blame their machinations on. But i hope it does not come to this. It is not the cold war anymore & these rapacious parasites whom we allow to rule know their time is almost up. At least I can trust Ron Paul to make the right logical well-thought out decisions viz. our beloved video games.
  • 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.

Showing 61-80 of 114 comments

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

OR…

Connect with Facebook

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