Anti-Game Candidates Do Poorly in Iowa Caucuses 111
Ron Bison writes to mention Game Politics is reporting that anti-game presidential candidates didn't fare so well in the Iowa caucuses. "On the Republican side, Mitt Romney, who lumps violent video games into what he terms an ocean of filth, was badly beaten by Mike Huckabee. Among Democrats, Hillary Clinton saw both Barack Obama and John Edwards win more of the popular vote. Clinton has previously proposed video game legislation in the U.S. Senate. She recently told Common Sense Media that she would support such legislation if elected president."
wow... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Slow news day? (Score:4, Interesting)
Repeat after me (Score:3, Interesting)
The results were the cause of many reasons, but video games laws were most definitely not one of them.
Re:And? (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt that videogames themselves were even close to the biggest issue, but apparently there is a large segment [arstechnica.com] of the population who play them. I'm a gamer, and I know I certainly care about whether or not a candidate wants to censor the games I play. Of course, this wouldn't be my only reason for supporting one candidate over another, but it is an issue worth considering nonetheless.
Re:Kinda sucks... (Score:5, Interesting)
He may be a former Baptist minister, but his record strongly suggests that he can hold his beliefs without forcing them on everyone else. His time as a minister, as well as his up-front style of religion, made me dismiss him initially, but I've started to like him a good bit more. The only real problem I can take issue with now is that he's not as up-to-date on current events as I'd like, and as an avid target shooter I think his stunt with the shotgun was reckless.
Considering that he's having trouble getting Baptist support due to not being arch-conservative enough is a positive sign. He repeatedly spoke out against the politicization of that group while it was happening (as opposed to complaining after the fact), and he took an active role in flushing out as much racism and bigotry in that group as you could hope for (making him far more attractive to minority groups than someone who just panders to them).
I believe biblical inerrancy is incompatible with evidence, but I've known many intelligent people (including one of the best programmers I know) who stick to the idea - so I don't equate it with intelligence. As for it being "delusional", maybe it is... but so are most human models of morality, as the only truly logical behavior is utterly self-serving (including the need to produce a working civilization to protect you and your genetic heritage). The fact that I accept moral ideals myself only proves that I'm just as deluded as most of us.
Overall I'd describe him as a conservative progressive, meaning he's a progressive, but not as fast and loose about it as someone more liberal would be.
Not video games, but the bigger picture (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because you might not let your 10-year-old play "Gears of War", does that imply that the government should regulate those games for everyone's "protection"? Or can we separate what we personally think is "right" from what the role of the government (coercive by nature) should be?
--
Educational microcontroller kits for the digital generation. [nerdkits.com]
Re:Kinda sucks... (Score:3, Interesting)
Huckabee also isn't very conservative, which refers to the small government end of the Fiscal spectrum. He's right near the middle as far as spending goes, but he would be spending the money to advance a Traditional agenda rather than a Progressive one. Progressives want to improve Health Care and Social Services, whereas the Republicans have been spending money on Abstinence only Sex Ed. in schools, etc. I believe the term they coined for it is "compassionate conservativism", which means they spend as much money as the Dems, just on different programs.
Re:Slow news day? (Score:1, Interesting)
How about getting a national healthcare system so that our businesses can compete internationally? Or maybe try getting our kids out of Iraq and Afghanistan so they can stop dying, and while you're at it do so in such a way that the whole world won't explode when we go?
On the other hand, anyone who votes for a candidate based on their attacks (or lack there of) on video games is a fucking moron and doesn't deserve the franchise. There are very good reasons not to like any of the "anti-video game" politicians that I can think of, so get some education on the topic and vote on real issues.
Re:Slow news day? (Score:1, Interesting)
I wasn't 12 at the time of the Columbine shootings and if you think that is when Lieberman started his attacks on video games you came late to the party. Lieberman is a total douche bag because his policies are dead wrong and he lectures other people as if he were right. If he didn't go around lecturing he'd still be a douche bag, just not on this issue. But he'd still be wrong on it.
To say that the "popular" opinion in the Democratic party was ever that violent video games were the cause of the Columbine massacre is not only inaccurate but outrageous. The fact that you call it the "Democrat party" instead of the "Democratic party" (its proper name) is usually a sign that you are a right-wing crank, you might want to check that a bit.
Also, What makes you think that we need a national health care system so that our businesses can compete internationally? There is nothing comparing the two together unless your attempting to reference that businesses that pay for health care have a higher cost structure then foreign companies. But that is easily offset by tax differences. But seriously, I need to know the methodology behind this idea, please tell me.
If you don't realize that companies have moved their manufacturing out of the country primarily because of the lower labor costs due to their nationalized health care system you are either very ignorant or highly delusional. You can take the Toyota Rav4 plant that went to Canada as an example before you start demanding one.
That we could provide the same level of coverage at a 20% (minimum) discount by establishing a single payer system is without question, because that's how much the private insurers spend DENYING coverage. Private health insurance is a huge failure by any objective measure of results, the only reasonable metric to judge such things by AND it is costing us more. It's not only embarrassing but incredibly stupid.
As for the Iraq and Afghanistan comment, I actually agree with it except I don't think leaving in defeat is a viable option without it blowing up afterwards. You may disagree and I hope your right in this one. But when the enemies goal is to say we won come fight by out side, I'm not sure how leaving them with anything but defeat is an option. We can redefine victory as long as it is understood by the other side and that would be fine by me.
If we stay in Iraq and Afghanistan and they continue on the path they are on we have lost. If we pull out and those countries explode even more than they already have we've lost. If we stay indefinitely, even if things get better (which they won't), then we're an empire and we've lost. We're kind of fucked no matter what happens and we can thank douche bags like Lieberman (and the guys who are even worse) for that.
The problem as I see it is that that type of politician who would back a law against video games would back many other unfavorable laws. It isn't really that the video games would be the issue but the icing on the cake of issues. You can put a wolf in a sheep's clothing and place him in the flock but when it starts howling at the moon, everyone will know it is a wolf. How do you know the limits to speech would be restricted to video games, how do you know the wolf will only howl at the moon and not start eating the sheep? And often, if you look hard enough, you will see that the wolf has eaten sheep in the past just like a politician