Debate Ignores Gamers; Video Game Critic Romney Declines to Condemn Torture Practice

Debate Ignores Gamers; Video Game Critic Romney Declines to Condemn Torture Practice

November 29, 2007
Like many GamePolitics readers, I was disappointed that none of the videos submitted by gamers made the final cut for last night's CNN/YouTube Republican debate.

To be fair, however, there are many other crucial issues such as Iraq, abortion, gun control, the economy and the influence of religion on politics. Host Anderson Cooper focused on these.

One telling moment for me, however, came when Mitt Romney could not bring himself to condemn the practice of waterboarding. Here's a guy who decries violent video games as part the "cultural cesspool" in which today's children are supposedly swimming but can't even find it within himself to condemn this acknowledged form of torture?

Sen. John McCain - who was a torture victim during his years of captivity by the North Vietnamese - absolutely ripped Romney on the issue and he was right to do so.

For Romney, the take-away is that virtual violence is a horror, but real-life torture is okay.

Governor, your hypocrisy is showing...

Here's the video of McCain-Romney exchange. Full text version after the jump.

UPDATE: Entertainment Consumers Association president Hal Halpin has weighed in on the debate: 
I was disappointed not to see a gamer question in much the same way that I was disheartened not to hear many other secondary, but important, questions posed.

The ECA member I ran into at PAX... put it into context well in that anyone watching a two hour debate on CNN very likely already knows where the candidates stand on the major issues, and it's certainly easy enough to find out otherwise.

What we don't know is where - or even "if" - they stand on the secondary matters. We won't let up however. Consumer rights are topically important and our demographic can and will be motivated to vote, but only if those politicians are willing to make the effort to speak to issues that are important to us.



Andrew Jones: Hello, gentlemen. I'm Andrew, and I'm a college student from Seattle, Washington. Recently, Senator McCain has come out strongly against using waterboarding as an instrument of interrogation.

My question for the rest of you is, considering that Mr. McCain is the only one with any firsthand knowledge on the subject, how can those of you sharing the stage with him disagree with his position?

Cooper: Governor Romney?

Romney: Well, he certainly is an expert and I certainly would want to get his counsel on a matter of this nature, but I do not believe that as a presidential candidate, it is wise for us to describe precisely what techniques we will use in interrogating people.

I oppose torture. I would not be in favor of torture in any way, shape or form.

Cooper: Is waterboarding torture?

Romney: And as I just said, as a presidential candidate, I don't think it's wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use. And that is something which I would want to receive the counsel not only of Senator McCain, but of a lot of other people.

And there are people who, for many, many years get the information we need to make sure that we protect our country. And, by the way, I want to make sure these folks are kept at Guantanamo. I don't want the people that are carrying out attacks on this country to be brought into our jail system and be given legal representation in this country. I want to make sure that what happened ...

(Applause)

... to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed happens to other people who are terrorists. He was captured. He was the so-called mastermind of the 9/11 tragedy. And he turned to his captors and he said, "I'll see you in New York with my lawyers." I presume ACLU lawyers.

(Laughter)

Well, that's not what happened. He went to Guantanamo and he met G.I.s and CIA interrogators. And that's just exactly how it ought to be.

(Applause)

Cooper: Senator McCain?

(Crosstalk)

(Unknown): There were reports Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded.

McCain: Well, governor, I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is.

Romney: I know what waterboarding is, Senator.

McCain: Then I am astonished that you would think such a -- such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our -- who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention. It's in violation of existing law...

(Applause)

And, governor, let me tell you, if we're going to get the high ground in this world and we're going to be the America that we have cherished and loved for more than 200 years. We're not going to torture people.

We're not going to do what Pol Pot did. We're not going to do what's being done to Burmese monks as we speak. I suggest that you talk to retired military officers and active duty military officers like Colin Powell and others, and how in the world anybody could think that that kind of thing could be inflicted by Americans on people who are held in our custody is absolutely beyond me.

Cooper: Governor Romney, 30 seconds to respond.

(Applause)

Romney: Senator McCain, I appreciate your strong response, and you have the credentials upon which to make that response. I did not say and I do not say that I'm in favor of torture.

I am not. I'm not going to specify the specific means of what is and what is not torture so that the people that we capture will know what things we're able to do and what things we're not able to do. And I get that advice from Cofer Black, who is a person who was responsible for counterterrorism in the CIA for some 35 years.

I get that advice by talking to former generals in our military...

Cooper: Time.

Romney: ... and I don't believe it's appropriate for me, as a presidential candidate, to lay out all the issues one by one...

Cooper: Time.

Romney: ... get questioned one by one: Is this torture, is that torture?

Cooper: Senator McCain...

Romney: And so, that's something which I'm going to take your and other people's counsel on.

Cooper: Senator McCain, 30 seconds to respond.

McCain: Well, then you would have to advocate that we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions, which were for the treatment of people who were held prisoners, whether they be illegal combatants or regular prisoners of war. Because it's clear the definition of torture. It's in violation of laws we have passed.

And again, I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not "24" and Jack Bauer.

Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The Army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn't think they need to do anything else.

My friends, this is what America is all about. This is a defining issue and, clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, to take a definite and positive position on, and that is, we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America.

(Applause)

 

Comments

@ Carter

Good point.
@Jabrwock

what, those little cubes you put in water to make soup?
And what the hell is with the talk about waterboarding on this site? This is a GAMES site, not moveon.org.

Actually, I'm pretty sure this is Dennis McCauley's site, so he can post anything he sees fit. I'm sure you'd agree from the sheer number of comments that plenty of other people feel this is a worthy discussion.

Personally, I think it's a valid topic simply because we're gamers and we're discussing politics - plus, it always irks me when people say, "hey! you can't talk about that here" when they disagree with the opinions expressed on this site.

I wasn't aware Dennis had to be impartial, anyway. This is still a blog, after all.
Oh, I just realized...if thousands of Americans would rather die in a terrorist attack than torture someone, that will probably have the reverse affect of supporting torture.

People will look and see it as another terrorist attack, which it is, and would be in panic. Wanting to end it so there isn't a third attack, they would be more likely to support any means of "information retrieval." It'd be like, say, OJ Simpson. People whom thought he was innocent, then he came out with that stupid book, and that only hurt his cause of being "innocent." If we were attacked again, it'd only hurt the image of equality, leading to support of such illegal tactics.
@the1jeffy

Since you won't let it drop after me asking nicely I'll say what I had wanted to in the first place. The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution OR the Declaration. The phrase is taken, out of context mind you, from a letter Jefferson wrote to one of his constituents. In the letter the constituent expressed concern that the U.S. would create a state church, not unlike the Church of England, and that to be a citizen one would have to belong to said church. Jefferson noted that would be not be the case because of the separation. That singular line was distorted into the insanity we see today. It never meant that a Christian can't run for office, it never meant that a Christian in office can't pray about the issues in his office, and it for sure never meant that a Christian has to "turn off his faith" while holding an elected position.

btw I agree that, and even said so in the beginning, that Romney was a bad choice. I only mentioned Huckabee because, as I said earlier, he's the only one who's hit my personal voting criteria.
John Server:
www.gamepolitics.com
Catagory:
Politics and Legislation ( http://gamepolitics.com/category/politics/ )

Immediate Right side, Search (Not all results are Topic Title only, so may appear in main article or perhaps even comments):

Romney

Results: 1 page, 14 articles.

Hillary

Results: 3 pages, 23 articles.

Clinton (to see any difference between Hillary alone and Clinton alone)

Results: 3 pages, 30 articles

You lose.

Naturally, this only includes the WordPress version of GamePolitics back to August of last year. Are you willing to stretch it even further to the old LiveJournal GamePolitics?


As to waterboarding, we all have different opinions and different reasons for those opinions. I could be as limited as you and declare supporters, such as yourself, of waterboarding to be admitted abusers and should be considered violently dangerous to themselves, their family, and others in society around them since such an individual that is so accepting of the use of abuse and torture would probably commit the very act of violence against others for ANY reason.

However, I am an intelligent person and know better than to make such ignorant statements.

Yes, I'm against it. Simply because it is outright stupid and ignorant to declare such acts used by terrorists and others to be atrocities and then turn around and use those very same or similar practices ourselves.

But what do you expect from governments... or Humans

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
I'm kind of ambivalent about this, in the bigger scheme of things (a presidential candidates debate) Video Games are pretty trivial, so certainly Romney chould be attacked for lying about them mattering, & the question coming up would out anyone who says anything less than "We've more important things to talk about." but I'm happy that their relevance to the debate was expressed in them not appearing here.

Vote Ron Paul 2008.
And here comes the impending lawsuit from Jack. Thanks, F'ed Up.
I've seen that argument before, Benji.

I fail to see how bearing children is a service to anything. Considering the ridiculous overpopulation of our species and its effect on our environment and natural resources, you'd think we'd be looking for excuses to tone down our breeding habits.

Really, anyone who's worried that we might not be making enough babies... well, allow me to dissuade their fears. :)

This conversation is getting off-topic, though.
@John Server

"Waterboarding is a good thing."

I stopped reading right about there. You are pro-torture and yet you want to bitch about Dennis' ethics? Sorry, no, fail.
Do any of you actually know what waterboarding is?

It is when you are held down and a damp towel or cloth is placed on your nose and mouth and water is dumped on the towel so that you start breathing in the water. You are drowning but it is usually stopped before you die.

You want your government to have the right to do this? Are you nuts?
Honestly if he really wants to rant about religion take it to my blog. A lot of is about religion and it would save Dennis some trouble with the off topic comments.

BTW I apologize for my own forrays into that realm. I do tend to get a tad carried away at times and I'm sorry if that's ever made things more difficult for you Dennis.
Waisting away energy again pandralisk? Posters here that have stated that they are atheist have asked you to quit.

What is the real reason you post here? I see no real point in you having to bring religion in to this particular topic.
Criticism is one thing, but what you're doing is trying to beat it with an aluminum bat.

If you really thing, and i mean REALLY think, religion is the problem, what are YOU doing to "correct" it?
i think it was the best watching romney stumble over the issue of the Holy Bible

he is a mormon

not a christan
@ Pandralisk

"True, I will continue critiquing religious hate and superstition when it lies at the heart of censorship attempts in this industry. A combination of truth, honesty, unbiased critique, and consistent logic will never stop me from refuting the lies of an internally contradictory religious system that is being used to stomp our a great deal of freedom and rights in this country."

Fine, have it your way. Oh, and have fun getting banned for ignoring Dennis' warning to stop these off topic rants.
Come on America can we get the word on National TV with a politician on our side saying games are good, something please, anything really I mean the politicians are just dancing around the subject.
Haha, who needs to dance around games when both parties can offer it is a sacrifical topic to religious nutcase voters, without anyone giving a damn or lifting a finger?
@Nicholas

It's not that they're dancing around the subject, they're just too busy doing the chicken dance for the misguided 'Do it for the children' crowd.
@Pandralisk

Yet another reason this country needs a governmental enema.
@WarOtter: I can't help but wonder if such a thing might happen sometime in the very near future. A lot of people hate Hillary and Romney, and if they end up being the two major party candidates I'd expect a third party candidate to be able to make a strong showing. Even if he doesn't quite win, such a strong showing would potentially smash the concept that a third-party candidate can never win, which has always been an oft-cited reason why people don't vote third party.
@WarOtter

Pretty much. But sacrificing games is also for the "OH MY GOD, EVIL SINFUL VIDEO GAMES ARE INJECTING SATAN INTO SOCIETY AND DESTROYING THE FAMILY. FICTIONAL DEPICTION OF VIOLENCE AND SEX = SIN. SIN = DESTROYED" crowd. Most of these canidates have taken a firm stance on the issue: they oppose games on both moral grounds [and encourage forms of censorship] and for teh Childrenziz!
I think it was a good choice for a question. Gaming is not my only priority, and I am glad to see another good issue raised. I would have probably been angry if it HAD been gaming, it is very easy for a politician to have an opinion on that without damaging his credibility in other areas.

For instance, I previously had no thoughts on Romney before, now that I have some information I can work with, I think he would be an awful president. I don't even want him in a Govenor's position. I think I might be OK with a local Council, or maybe head of Political Dead-end position.
I never really supported Romney as a Presidential candidate and no there is not a snow ball's chance in hell that I would support him. His stance on the War and torture really makes him out to be a dictator wannabe.

I am glad to McCain stand up to him and throw his argument back in his face.

I am going to have to look more into McCain, but right now, Obama is still my top choice.
Don't you people know anything? Torture is indeed illegal, and against moral freedom everywhere, but what they're doing in Iraq isn't torture. It's just "enhanced interrogation", and last time I checked, enhanced interrogation doesn't break any laws...

Does anyone even care about Romney? Isn't he like in dead last, now that Stephen Colbert is off the ballot?
Can't say i'm suprised. Issues like Iraq, terrorizm, Immigration ((For me especially)), and other such items take precedance over games. That being said, Romney and MC cain already lost my support for there various stances on items. Romney cause he just seems like a indecicive prick, Mc Cain for his spear heading of the Ammnesty bill. Oh, I'm sorry, Immigration reform bill. Please.

Hillary is no better, and obama lacks the experiance I think a president needs. On the other hand, theres damn few alternatives on either side really. Makes me sad that this is what we have to chose from in next years election.
I've never supported Romney and after his condescending excahnge with McCain I can honestly say that I never will. McCain has some good ideas, don't agree with all of them, but he has some good one. About the only candidate I would honestly vote for today is Huckabee. He's pretty much the nail on the head for my top criteria.
Is thinking that torture is unnecessary and rare in our country extremely naive? I believe so.

Would I want to be tortured? No. Would anyone want to be tortured? No.

If I were captured by terrorists would I be tortured? Yes (and then decapitated).

Is torturing known terrorists in order to gain information that could save the lives of my countrymen and women bad? I don't think so.

If I were tortured to gain information about an attack I knew about that would kill people in another country, would I like it? No. But I'd understand why they're doing it.

I liked the Senator's response. He basically said, "I refuse to show the terrorists our hand. If we tell the world that if a terrorist is captured, we will give him a stern talking to, what is to discourage them from continuing to plot our demise?"

Torture continues without our knowledge, and will continue no matter who is in office. The only difference is who is willing to outright lie to the public to protect their image.
@ E. Zach

Be careful of McCain and the rest of the GoP for that matter. They all stand against social freedom, economic fariness, scientific advancment, and peaceful foriegn policy.

McCain has said, quite explicitly at a pro-Israel convention hosted by Jerry Farwell, that he believes the book of Revelations should serve as an inspiration and justification of contemporary foriegn policy. I question the sanity of a man who would make such a claim.

@Hkdjr

You really think Huckabee hits the nail on the head for your top criteria? What criteria do you refer to? Are you aware of Huckabee's stances on the issues?

Huckabee stands against working people by supporting a disgusting economic structure that is channeling more American money upwards than any point in recent history. Huckabee stands against the rights of the American people to live equally and happily under matrimony and common law marriage. Huckabee stands for enforcing personal moral values and religious norms on a free nation. Huckabee supports internationally illegal warfare and using lies to justify war as a measure of national policy. Huckabee stands against healthcare for the American people to ensure that his corporatized donors can continue to exploit the suffering of honest people for profit. Huckabee stands against the protection of our environment and advancement of the sciences. His superstitious value system, founded upon ambiguous religious principles derived from Bronze Age superstition, refutes basic ethical obligations founded upon the principle of autonomy. Huckabee stands for the barbaric implementation of the death penalty, a relic of retributive justice that has absolutely no moral or preventative value. Huckabee stands for torture and misleading the American people into believing artificially inflated terror threats. Huckabee is also rabidly anti-woman. He thinks women should return to their Biblically defined roles as nothing but wives and mothers. He believes life begins at conception, which means he's not just desirous of banning abortion but hormonal birth control and the IUD, along with comprehensive sex education since men MUST have virgin brides.

...is this the kind of person you want leading a society that is supposedly the foundation of democratic freedom in the free world?
Games are a back pocket topic for politicians. They'll pull it out when they need to make a press release or jump on the newest games-related bandwagon to appear 'in the know.'

Lone Gunmen be damned!
@ Skylar

Our refusal and acknowledgment of torture as an immoral and disgusting practice is precisely what makes American better than tyrannical nations. How can we denounce torture internationally as a terrible practice, but at the same time defend the use of torture within our own territories?

Romney offered a response to the cowards in this country who are so disillusioned by the threat of international terrorism that they would be willing to sacrafice one of America's greatest moral positions. Myself and thousands of Americans would rather die in a terrorist attack than see the country we love contradict itself by torturing a human being. Those who denounce torture, in all cases except national security, are both cowardly and inconsistent.
for once Pandralisk has a point (without being insulting, good job).

Huckabee is pretty much against everyone who isn't a W.A.S.P. which includes "the gays." The only thing Huckabee is good for is supporting Net Neutrality.

handy candidate-issue guide: http://www.2decide.com/table.htm
nevermind about the good job. i guess i'm so used to seeing your insults, Pandralisk, that i glazed over them.
Hey Dennis, maybe as part of the full disclosure department you should start saying that you hate Romney before any article in which you speak about him. It seems that whether or not a topic has to do with games or not, Romney is a jerk according to you.

I don't condone torture but at the same time presenting to the world the techniques which can and can't be used for solely political points seems to be a risk to our national security. I'm willing to bet that some of the techniques which we use in the army field manual would be seen by a lot of people as torture but McCain is okay with those. But tipping our hand to the things people may or may not be subject to greatly diminishes the effctiveness of the things we can do.
@Conejo: I didn't find him insulting this time around so much as... very impassioned. What he said was basically every conservative platform plank, described in as unflattering terms as possible.
The irony being that, by railing against the commonly held beliefs of the right in such a zealous manner he comes off as no more reasonable and no more tolerant than those he speaks out against.
@ Pandralisk

1. I am an evangelical Christian, as Huckabee is. I also believe life begins at conception. This does not make me superstitious or anti-woman.

2. I also believe in Biblical Creation. This does not make me anti-science, nor does it make it me an idiot.

3. I, again like Huckabee, don't believe in same sex marriage. Whether or not the Federal Government needs to get involved is another matter entirely.

4. I also support capital punishment. If nothing else it deters that one person from ever hurting anyone ever again.

5. I do believe that the Earth is getting warmer, however whether or not man is responsible is in question to me. Looking back every 30-50 years a pattern emerges of global warming and cooling. Believing this does not make me anti-enviroment.

All that being said I'm also on record here for supporting free speach, even the speach I tend to disagree with. I'll do my own research on other matters, but I think you'll forgive me if I don't take your, admittedly biased, view on Huckabee as gospel.
Nothing Pandralisk says is intelligent and very little right.

The Republican party, unlike, the democrat party, is the party that wants to give freedom and responsibility back to the individual.
Oh god I had a horrible dream last night, somehow Romney won the republican nomination and Hillary the democrat.
@ Broken Scope

I think that is the nightmare of many a voter. Myself included. :(
Zombie Apocalypse, the only way to save America.
@MaskedPixelante

It’s just “enhanced interrogation”, and last time I checked, enhanced interrogation doesn’t break any laws…

Oh, ow, my sides hurt, I'm laughing so hard... the pain.

Just so you know, the US government officially considers waterboarding... "enhanced interrogation"...

And what McCain was talking about was the stuff going on at Guantanamo and the secret CIA prisons. Not Iraq. That was too public a venue, they let the Iraqi police torture prisoners now instead... oops, sorry, I mean they let the Iraqi police "interrogate" the prisoners using "enhanced" techniques...

Three Kings anyone?
@Pandralisk:
"Myself and thousands of Americans would rather die in a terrorist attack than see the country we love contradict itself by torturing a human being."

I would prefer to see one hateful person or criminal go through severe discomfort to protect you and thousands of other innocent Americans.
Can I get an E-Mail Address for this Romney bastard? I've seen what torture does to people, and i'd personally like to stick this to the shithead. Come on Dennis, you know the fucker deserves at the very least a bollocking for that.
Austin Lewis Says:

November 29th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Nothing Pandralisk says is intelligent and very little right.

The Republican party, unlike, the democrat party, is the party that wants to give freedom and responsibility back to the individual.
--------------

Yeah, really. Sorry mate, that is the worst lie i've heard in a long time.

For all his trolling about religion, which I do not in the slightest agree with, Pandralisk hits the nail on the head when he talks about Conservatives.
More on topic

The whole world of intelligence and espionage is so damn fucked up. Its never as black and white as we wish, torture is bad, but then we run into the issue of defining torture. another massively gray area with some minor black and white fringe.

Is torture causing pain, or is waking someone up every hour and asking for information torture? is leaving them in a dark cell? Is yelling at them torture? Is giving them food that their religion forbids them to eat torture? What about giving them food that is harmless and nutritious, but has an additive that tastes horrible and lingers for hours on end? Is something purely psychological torture?

Its one more issue that just can't seemed to be talked about because everyone wants a black white answer.
I'm not a big Nietzsche fan, but there's an old statement about fighting monsters and becoming them....
When one fights monsters, one should be careful lest he himself becomes a monster.

Theres a few different phrasings but they all give the same general idea.

Another topical quote

When you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes back at you.
"I am an evangelical Christian, as Huckabee is. I also believe life begins at conception. This does not make me superstitious or anti-woman."

No, it doesn't. But the use of this belief to legislate anti-abortion laws does make Huckabee anti-woman.

"I also believe in Biblical Creation. This does not make me anti-science, nor does it make it me an idiot."

Anti-science? Yes. Idiot? Probably not. But anyone who votes because of religious alignment is certainly missing the point of separation of Church and State.

DCWill,

Perhaps you missed the point where Romney compares video games to a "Cultural Cesspool" (Fake violence is bad), but declines to out a listed form of torture (Real violence = not bad). And, yes, you or I would probably think the Army field manual is toturous, but the Geneva Convention disagrees with us there.

I understand your point that Romney doesn't want to marginalize our interrogation abilities by pin-point scrutiny. But, he simply could have taken the, "I will let the experts handle what is toture and what isn't," line instead of choking on the question. (Much how he choked on the Bible question).
I just read the Update on Hal's point of view on the debate. Many people already know the possitions of candidates on top issues. There are times when opposing candidates' points of view are very similar and it comes down to the secondary issues that can be the tipping point.

Video games are certainly a secondary position. Federal Budgets, the Dollar, the War in Iraq, Healthcare etc. These are very important issues, but they are discussed so frequently that some people can just glaze over them when reading about politics. But when a candidate speaks out about something different it can get people's attention and change their mind about that candidate.

That is why I am so impressed with Obama. He is the only candidate that is speaking out about technological issues. He has made a stance when all other candidates are ignoring it.

I really hate political polls, because they represent a really narrow demographic of older voters. If these polls took the opinion of younger people, the polls would really show a different story.
Will those talking about "freedom" please tell me which candidate from either party is offering MORE freedom instead of less, and specifically what is that freedom?

It seems to me that both parties have their hands in my pockets, their just looking to steal different things.

These people’s jobs are for the most part to create law, which for the most part is the restriction of liberty. Some laws are essential, don't steal, don't rape and murder. Some are bullshit, no spanking, no using transfat, no smoking. When all the candidates are proposing more of the latter I think our choices are pitiable.
One name - Ron Paul
Touche'
It's the government. Consumer rights be damned, this is the government.
@ Timmay!

Ron Paul lacks the consitsancy and drive that a president needs. Sure he has some firm followers and campaign sense, but the guy cannot handle a debate. He cannot discuss anything with out tripping up and falling back on his campaign. I have yet see him take a firm stance on anything.
@ Kitsu

I am not sure if that was sarcastic or serious, but I will respond to the latter.

The government is meant to serve and protect the people. We are the ones who matter. Unfortunately corruption and indifference from politicians have threatened that very principle. Sure Entertainment in the form of movies video games and music is a priviledge not a right, but the pursuit of happiness is an inalienble right as set forth in the constitution. Entertainment is part of our pursuit of happiness. Therefore, the DMCA, video game legislation etc. is threatening that right and needs to be addressed by the government. Corporations need protection too, but not at the expense of the people.
Wow I thought this place was about game politics not leftist politics.

WTF is up with this website and this guy always ragging on Romney. He damn near never rips Hillary for her stance on games even though she is FAR more vocal about it. Hell, Romney's stance is very general. He is against violence, etc. in media overall. Hillary is specifically targeting games.

But this liberal hack can't wait to bash Romney every time he can.

And what the hell is with the talk about waterboarding on this site? This is a GAMES site, not moveon.org. If you want to whine about waterboarding do it there , jeez. Did Bowser Waterboard Mario? Not that I am aware of (although I haven't finished Mario Galaxy yet so that scene may be in there). Then it doesn't belong on this board.

But since everyone else is talking about it, I might as well put my opinion out. I think you can guess it.

Waterboarding is a good thing. If we have someone in custody who knows some important info they should be interrogated. Waterboarding doesn' do any permanent damage. It just makes you feel like you have been drowning. Real torture is much more gruesome. It's what the terrorists do to our people when they get their hands on em.

We haven't even done waterboarding all that often. Only a few times like on that hairy Ron Jeremy wannabe, kal el sheikh mohammed. He folded like an origami swan when we did it to him.

Mcain's position has nothing to do with his personal experience, IMO. For years he has been a lib in the republican party. He frequently takes lib positions to become the darling of the left wing. The left loves republican losers like him that take their side.

In the end, this is my view. If you are against waterboarding you are either: A) Dishonest, B) A moron, or C) a fucking pussy.

Now lets leave this shit off this fucking board.
Actually, "life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are in the Declaration of independance, not the Constitution. While it's a nice, beautiful document, the Declaration is not a law or legal document.
@John Server


'In the end, this is my view. If you are against waterboarding you are either: A) Dishonest, B) A moron, or C) a fucking pussy.'

That kind of generalisation tells me everything I need to know about you. And I bet you'd waterboard anyone who didn't agree with you.
Lets just agree that we're going to to disagree on what you said and leave it at that. I really don't want to start a church/state argument because that's not the point of the article. I was only responding to pandra because he asked me something directly.
@ John Server

Wow. I have never seen anyone as vocal as you. Too bad you have never read any article on this site or you would have known that Hilary is bashed quite frequently.

This article is not really a bash on Romney. It is exposing a bias and contridiction in Romney's position. Romney is a vocal proponant against violent video game, but he supports real life torture. Doesn't make sense to me.

There are also different types of torture. You have physical torture (rack, vices etc.) There is also psycological torture such as waterboarding. Both types can have detrimental effects on the person and both need to be avoided. There are less dangerous and more effective types of interogation that can and should be used.
I don't really have a problem with his opinion that waterboarding is ok, that's something that will be decided by polls and public opinion, my problem is with the manner of approaching the debate.

And for those of you who are wondering, it's what I call a 'Thompson opinion', in other words, 'What I think is gospel and I consider anyone who doesn't agree with me to be either a criminal or mentally deficient'.

For some reason I have no time for people with that kind of attitude.
John Server, sit down and shut up, thanks.
Oh, and for clarification, I'm talking about the comment in this thread, not about Romney.
@Nicholas Thomson: Don't you know? Games are bad for our children's well being. You like games, you don't like children. That's the current political sentiment and the media ain't helped at all.
@John Server: Sit Down, oh you are sitting? Good. Disconnect your keyboard, microphone, RJ-11 or RJ-45 cable, your webcam, your printer, your telephone, and proceed to do us all a favor by shutting the fuck up, and using the remaining mouse and monitor to read prior post before further making yourself look like an absolute dumbass. Hilary is one of the most mentioned individuals on this website who could only be matched by Leeland Yee and super seceded by John Bruce Thompson who makes it part of his life mission to be mentioned on this blog no less than once a week.

As for waterboarding and all other means of torture, I'm not a moron, I'm not dishonest, so I guess by your standards, I'm "a fucking pussy" for believing that all persons should be treated humanely.
@ Scott

There was a good line in the book Starship Troopers by Heinlein about that. He basically said that "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" was a wonderful bit of poetry, but not plausible in the modern world. For example he says that while you should not have your life taken away, you also do not have the right to take way someone elses life, and are responsible for the lives of your children, family ect. However, the best part was that he said we all have the right to 'Pursue' happiness, but that doesn't mean we actually have to obtain it. In other words by being a citizen you are not entitled to a fancy car, a big TV or the like. Heinlein was very adamant that people should work for what they have and those who have the power of politics shoud have been willingness to server to protect their country (probably based on a Roman tradition). While much of his ideas are impractical now, they are thought provoking.
@Pandralisk -- I've come to doubt that you could actually get into a conversation without insulting religion.
I second E.Zachary Knight's latest comment.

@John Server - It is blatantly obvious that you do not follow this site, else you would have read the articles criticizing Hillary's involvement in anti-video game rallying/legislation (not to mention the comments that follow said articles).

"Waterboarding doesn’ (sic) do any permanent damage. "

Are you kidding me? Take a few minutes to Google "Psych 101 + torture" and read up on the affects of torture on the human mind.

"We haven’t even done waterboarding all that often."

So what branch of the US Government do you work for? CIA? FBI? Are you in the know on what goes on behind closed doors?

"In the end, this is my view. If you are against waterboarding you are either: A) Dishonest, B) A moron, or C) a fucking pussy.

Now lets leave this shit off this fucking board. "

I am the grandson of a WW2 veteran. I am the son of a Vietnam veteran. I believe in defending my country against outside threats.

My day time job consists of developing simulations meant to train soldiers so that they are better prepared to do their jobs and make it back home alive.

I'd gladly defend my family to the death, if need be.

I'd rather be punished to the fullest extent, rather than lie my way out of my mistakes.

I am completely against waterboarding, so do you wish to amend your last few statements to accommodate where I fall in your twisted logic?

Check the tag line for this site: "Where politics and video games collide."

It appears you are having a difficult time correlating the purpose of this article to video games.
I'm against torture, and I'm not any of the three. You can call me a fucking pussy all you want; it takes greater will to NOT do anything than to resort to violence. Although...

Pandralisk: "Myself and thousands of Americans would rather die in a terrorist attack than see the country we love contradict itself by torturing a human being."

That ^ doesn't not speak for me. I don't support torture, but I won't let myself get killed over one person, when there are others who do need me here more than some stranger half a world away. And, the country already contradicts itself every damn day.
To those who are pro-torture to save Americans: Violence only brings more violence. Kill one one of theirs, they kill 10 of ours, we kill 100 of theirs, they kill 1000 of ours.

I wish I had my old hard-drive as I did a full-writeup on torture and it's use for our "protection". For those of you supporting all this muck, take a day out of your life, sit down, read the Patriot Act and the Geneva Convention.

Sadly I have given up hope on this election. There is no lesser of two evils. Obama (I'm sad to say that he won't get elected because of the color of his skin and his upbringing in a Muslim setting), Clinton (This is the US, not the UK you idiot, freedom of speech all that good stuff), Edwards, Guliani ("9/11,9/11,9/11, I was there on 9/11. Just don't marry me, you might find me dressed up as a woman, but I will say what the voters want to hear.") all failures.

Don't try to feed me this Ron Paul b.s. line either. The man has no consistency and a bunch of rabid supporters who are more of a danger than a help.

The system is imploding and if a revolution starts it will have worldwide implications and destabilizing effects everywhere. Sadly I don't see any other future outcome at the moment. Maybe 2012 will shed some thin ray of hope, 2008 is a wash.
"Lets just agree that we’re going to to disagree on what you said and leave it at that. "

Agree to disagree on Separation of Church and Sate? No. When you discuss Romney, in particular, religion must be factored in, because the man is so vocal about it, you can easily conclude he will take his religion with him into the Presidency, and quite frankly, that is against the Freedom of Religion. I am free to believe the giant spaghetti monster produces all souls, but I won't be making policy desisions based on that belief. We are certainly free to disagree on the issues, abortion, gay rights, etc. But when you start talking about making those into laws (as Romney does - hence the relevance to this article), the Constitution trumps either viewpoint.
I just wish I could find an article I read a while ago about how a massive percentage of information gleaned from torture turns out to be inaccurate.
Ron Paul FTW
@MacBoy - Thank you for that stunning contribution to the discussion =)

@jkdjr25 - Excellent reminder of why history is an important subject to pay attention to. I'm one of the few that believes my girlfriend's degree in history studies is more valuable than my own (her job is also more important than my own)

Now, on topic with the article, I too am disappointed that issues involving video games were not brought up. Addressing secondary issues can result in that little nudge citizens need to walk down to a local voting booth.
The 2008 elections is becoming like the "Alien VS Predator" movie:
It's overhyped, overrated, and we are all going to be dissapointed with the ending. And lest not forget the tagline: "Whoever wins, we lose".

@mort
What you say is the truth. If 2012 isn't better, I fear what will be around the corner.
Dissapointingly, video games aren't THAT big of an issue compared to the Iraq War, Impeachment of Bush Administration and its former members, and the EEEEEEEEEVIL SATAN SPAWN Universal Health Care (that many European nations use. Google it if you don't believe me.)
Well, I wouldn't be too crazy about it. It is not like there is a law against playing videogames. Plus JT seems to make the "Moral Conservative" look like a bunch of biblethumping idiots.
Is this where I should point out that the Geneva Conventions provides that illegal combatants can be shot immediately upon capture? Wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of McCain's rhetoric.
@George
*entering sarcasm mode for viewer protection*

Yeah, he's just full of it isn't he. I mean its not like McCain was EVER tortured...oh wait.
Thanks for the history lesson. Amend my post to nix "the Constitution" and replace that with "2 centuries of judicial ruling" and my point is unchanged.

And where did I say a person with faith has to turn it off when becoming an elected official?

I did say, that policy decisions made to enforce a religious view (specifically - anti-abortion, anti-gay-rights) are contrary to rulings enforcing the separation of church and state. And nowhere did I even mention, " [a] Christian can’t run for office, [snip] a Christian in office can’t pray about the issues in his office," so thank you for making an issue where the was none.

As to the "insanity" you refer, I assume you mean the issue with the commandments in courts, prayer in schools, etc. Once again, I am against any Federal mandate enforcing either a ban or approval any of those issues (leaning once again on the separation of chuch and state). I feel that these isses are best dealt with locally first, regionally second, state-level third, and supreme court only in it's finality (when all other avenues are explored and there is real evidence of religious prejudice - i.e. little Jimmy the X-tian is beat up for wanting to pray in a school, or little Freddy the Wiccan is forced to participate in prayer).

However, becuse of our immediate response of, "why doesn't the government do anything!" when we get offended - we have the "insanity" that you refer to. We make national issues of the smallest thing, thanks scare mongering newsmedia. It all comes back to parental responsibility in the end. Lazy or stupid parents either won't (or can't) explain why different religions exist, so they fall back on "protecting" their kids by hiding all other views until their personal ones are rote. It's ignorance, really. And the incapability of a good many religious people to think and defend their faith on their own terms - being either only able to spout back mantra or violently demonize contrary faiths. It's sad, really, because one of the main culprits in this issue has such beautiful ideas that are so easily ignored.

Whatever happened to love thy neighbor? Or at the very least, live and let live.
@~The1Jeffy - I'm so going to make a casual game titled "Freddy the Wiccan"

Pure awesome-ness
@~thejeffy1

Why mention abortion? It's not a religious issue at all, despite the fact that some people try to make it such. Someone can easily oppose abortion without having to be making "policy decisions made to enforce a religious view."

Hmm, I want to be careful here so that I don't help drag things too off-topic... then again, this particular article had more of traditional political theme to it then most here.
@Mad_Scientist

Same can be said of same-sex marriage.

Not that I oppose it.
Of course, the whole issue that seems to be ignore about torture is the Constitutional Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment. Call me crazy on this one, but torture is cruel and uses 'unusual' methods.
"I’m not going to specify the specific means of what is and what is not torture so that the people that we capture will know what things we’re able to do and what things we’re not able to do. And I get that advice from Cofer Black, who is a person who was responsible for counterterrorism in the CIA for some 35 years."

LOL. Cofer Black was head of CIA CounterTerrorist Center from 1999-2002. 9/11 happened on his watch (and he's been blamed by many for failure to notify the FBI that 2 of the hijackers had entered the U.S.), Bin Laden escaped on his watch, and countless Afghan and Pakistani CIVILIANS were bought from the Afghan rebels as POWs and detained indefinitely under his watch. Now he's vice-president of Blackwater. And Mitt Romney has chosen him to be his counterterrorism policy advisor? WTF? Taking this guy's advice on the use of torture is like taking Rumsfeld's advice on troop levels.
@GryphonOsiris

A lot of the debate is centered around whether waterboarding is cruel and unusual enough to be considered "torture."

Then there are those who couldn't care if it's torture, they see justification in utilizing it if it extracts information from a subject that saves lives.

As for me, I haven't really followed the issue closely enough to come to an informed decision.
On the subject of torture:

The real world works very differently then the 24 world, in that torture is about the most unreliable form of information gathering there is.
@Ace

i have yet to see an anti-Gay Marriage argument that DIDN'T involve religion.
A few other things:

@the1jeffy

"And where did I say a person with faith has to turn it off when becoming an elected official? "

You did say this:

" he will take his religion with him into the Presidency, and quite frankly, that is against the Freedom of Religion."

I can easily see how jkdr25 interpreted it as he did.

There seems to be a common view that a person needs to seperate his/her religious views from his/her political views. This is complete and utter nonsense, and pretty much impossible for one to do assuming one actually has any genuine beliefs. A person's religious/spiritual views are one of the greatest factors that influence his moral views, and those 2 things cannot be seperated from each other as a result. So if you want to seperate spiritual views from politics, you really have to completely seperate moral views from politics. This may actually sound good to some people, untill you consider what moral views really are: a person's view on what is right and wrong. Do we really want people's political views to be completely unrelated to what they actually think is right or wrong? Wait, considering the amount of immoral politicians we have, that may already be the case. Do we really want to enforce that then?

What people DO need to do, and what some fail to do, is recognize the position government is supposed to have. It is not the responsibilty of the US to enforce everything, or to even get involved in certain things. For example, while I believe adultery is immoral, I would never ever suggest the US legal system ban it or anything. It is not the role of the government to deal with things like that.

But consider abortion for a moment. Now, I can tell you support it, and apparently don't believe it is killing. But try to put yourself in the viewpoint of the other side for a sec. Imagine if you will that abortion IS killing. Well, in that case, I think it is an issue for the government to get involved in, correct?

Now, some people make mistakes regarding the abortion issue. There are certain Bible passages that are often interpreted to mean that life begins at conception, but using those passages to argue against abortion in the political arena is foolish and just falls into the trap of making abortion look like a religious issue, and helps people stereotype all foes of it as "religious nutcase extremists trying to enforce their spiritual views". There are plenty of people who aren't Christian but who also oppose abortion, and the have come to their view based on scientific and medical evidence.

Unfortunately, so much of the debate on the abortion issue is distorted nowadays, that half the times people are arguing things that are really completely unrelated to it.
@ace tsiehta: how is rejecting the idea of same sex marriage Not associated with religious prejudices? If you mention a declining birth rate in scandinavia (JT ref), I truly will crap myself.

I agree that 'torture' does have a lot of gray area, however, when something is so far out on the fringe (i.e. waterboarding), I think we can safely say it's torture. After all, we have called it torture in the past. If you still have any doubt, talk with a navy pilot that experienced it in SERE school, and ask his opinion.

@ Mad_Scientist: what you say about not seperating the religion from the candidate makes sense. with that in mind, i think we should start opening up the debate to include religious views. currently people avoid it like the plague for fear of offending anyone. since this background is going to inform their decisions while in office, we should be able to examine and debate those views.
You know from my viewpoint all of the candidates for president are idiots. Could we please get someone with an IQ of over the average? Really both political parties are messed up. Republicans are close-minded and hate when their values are challenged, and the Democrats will probably bankrupt America. With the politicians we have already I'm surpirsed that America is still here!! I mean with "free-speech" zones and being silenced if we object....Where are the good people?
@conejo

what, those little cubes you put in water to make soup?

Heh, no. The movie. Specifically, the scene where the Iraqi (trained by the US during the Iran-Iraq war) uses "enhanced interrogation" on the US soldier.
"John Server Says:

November 29th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Wow I thought this place was about game politics not leftist politics.

WTF is up with this website and this guy always ragging on Romney. He damn near never rips Hillary for her stance on games even though she is FAR more vocal about it. Hell, Romney’s stance is very general. He is against violence, etc. in media overall. Hillary is specifically targeting games.

But this liberal hack can’t wait to bash Romney every time he can.

And what the hell is with the talk about waterboarding on this site? This is a GAMES site, not moveon.org. If you want to whine about waterboarding do it there , jeez. Did Bowser Waterboard Mario? Not that I am aware of (although I haven’t finished Mario Galaxy yet so that scene may be in there). Then it doesn’t belong on this board.

But since everyone else is talking about it, I might as well put my opinion out. I think you can guess it.

Waterboarding is a good thing. If we have someone in custody who knows some important info they should be interrogated. Waterboarding doesn’ do any permanent damage. It just makes you feel like you have been drowning. Real torture is much more gruesome. It’s what the terrorists do to our people when they get their hands on em.

We haven’t even done waterboarding all that often. Only a few times like on that hairy Ron Jeremy wannabe, kal el sheikh mohammed. He folded like an origami swan when we did it to him.

Mcain’s position has nothing to do with his personal experience, IMO. For years he has been a lib in the republican party. He frequently takes lib positions to become the darling of the left wing. The left loves republican losers like him that take their side.

In the end, this is my view. If you are against waterboarding you are either: A) Dishonest, B) A moron, or C) a fucking pussy.

Now lets leave this shit off this fucking board."

Cute, we have a Fascist. Would you allow yourself to be waterboarded, so you can experience it? And we'll give you a thin paper book to put over your head, so that when we beat you with Hammers, you can't complain.
Er, Jabr, Conejo was quoting the movie, which I thought was damn good, by the way.
@smeagol23

I have a friend who hates religion yet is very homophobic (I've given up debating it with him, I try to avoid the issue when around him) and opposes same sex marriage. I don't know if he's an extreme minority in this regard, but I'm merely pointing out that you don't need overt religious bias to be opposed to gay marriage.

However, it could be that growing up in the Bible belt USA has had a pervasive influence on him.
I wonder if we waterboarded Rommey, I wonder what information he will give us?

Maybe we can get him admit corruption or get him to say anything we want him too.
@jkdjr25, formerly bayushisan

I appreciate the history lesson, but it looks like you are a little off. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." So congress cannot make laws that are the will of religion alone. Such as, arguably, abortion and gay marriage.

I agree that these candidates don't have to abandon their faith when in office. Gerald Ford was an excellent example of this; he was a very religious man (Episcopalian). Unfortunately, his refusal to use his faith to rally support caused him to lose to Jimmy Carter, who beat the drum of his Baptist faith and won over the Bible Belt.
On second thought Hilary Clinton might be more fun to waterboard
On third thought, I really wanna waterboard Jack Thompson, Sam Brownback, Joseph I. Lieberman along with Hilary Clinton
@ E. Zachary Knight Says "...I have yet see him take a firm stance on anything."

I'm not gonna lie to you, you've made my head explode. I humbly ask you to find anything ambiguous about the issues on this page: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
There is a secular/legal basis for the issues surrounding gay marriage, which focuses on the simple fact that same-sex couples cannot bear children on their own. Simply put, if people don't make babies, the nation doesn't have people to run businesses, operate machinery, defend the country, help the economy function, etc. In a way bearing children is a service to the state, and since it's also a huge hassle the state gives tax breaks and other such benefits to family units that raise children. The argument is that since a same-sex family can't procreate it is of less use to the state, so the state shouldn't extend the same benefits to same-sex couples that it does to 'conventional' couples.
I'm not saying it's a good argument, necessarily - just that it exists.
"Real torture is much more gruesome. It’s what the terrorists do to our people when they get their hands on em."

this is excuse is not acceptable as a reason to engage in any forms of torture.

saying the other guys are worse doesn't mean we can sink to their level.
nah jacks to busy with his disbarment case beside I dare him to sue me. But then he would need his license.
Comparing a "torture" technique that we should be able to use against our enemies to save our compatriots lives, soldiers lives, civilians, just regular people, with videogame playing? I'm all for videogames, and free speech, but comparing something that could save lives, with a form of entertainment is pretty weak.

That doesn't even make any sense, and your bias is showing GP. Stick to videogames and keep the left-wing politics out of it, videogame legislation is not a clean cut partisan issue.
@ WholefnShow

I’m not gonna lie to you, you’ve made my head explode. I humbly ask you to find anything ambiguous about the issues on this page: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/


Sure it is listed on his website. All candidates stances are on their websites. But I have never seen him take a firm stance on any issue in public. He mostly flounders away his time.

Any one can write something hand it to the publisist and have her rewrite it into something intelligible, but it takes a different kind of person to discuss those issues intelligibly in person.
@Benji

so a barren woman shouldn't be able to get married?
a man with a vasectomy should be forced to get a divorce because he cannot procreate for the state any longer?

we should not remove civil rights due to faulty logic, whether or not it comes from religion.
"Unfortunately, his refusal to use his faith to rally support caused him to lose to Jimmy Carter"

Who was, in turn, defeated by an Arab who supported the storming on an Embassy, which is, considered to be an act of agression.
@Andrew

Waterboarding isn't a clean-cut partisan issue either.

Dennis is entitled to his opinion, biased or not. If this article was in support of Romney & waterboarding, would you have complained?
@MrKenyon

Er, Jabr, Conejo was quoting the movie, which I thought was damn good, by the way.

Doh!

@Ace Tsiehta

Waterboarding isn’t a clean-cut partisan issue either. Dennis is entitled to his opinion, biased or not. If this article was in support of Romney & waterboarding, would you have complained?

You mean in support of waterboarding Romney? I'd vote for that.
Ok, I don't have the time to read through the responses right now, but there is a point I'd like to bring up to the supporters of waterboarding, especially John Server:

Where is the line?

If we assume we have the right to torture threats to the American people, then how do we classify what person is a threat?

I have no problem with the basic idea meting out retribution to bad people (terrorists, murderers, rapists, etc.). The problem here, though, is how can we be sure that these people are who we believe them to be. As others have said, things are rarely so back and white.

How do we cope with the fact that we may be torturing the wrong people? What if this ends up with an over zealous military commander torturing and murdering innocent people?

If a situation like that were to arise, the United States as a whole would be no better than maniacs like Pol Pot and Hitler.
@Todd

Honestly that's why I'm a very strict Constitutionalist on top of everything else. Many of the issues that the feds are intruding upon are best left to the individual states to decide. That was the intention, unfortunately the only candidate to say anything along these lines is Fred Thompson and he was a supporter of the so called "fairness doctrine" so any vote for him is right out.
So if we have the right to waterboard people that we consider to be a threat does China, Japan, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Ukraine, Bolivia, Somalia, Rwanda, Spain, France, Argentina, Brazil, and etc have the right to waterboard people they consider a threat?

The person they could consider a threat could be an american citizen who has done nothing but accused of being a spy. Not much different than the sterotypes of all middle easterns being terrorist in america.
@ jkdjr25: I just googled fred thompson & 'fairness doctrine.' it looks like thompson is against it, not for it. maybe I'm missing something...
Andrew,
Whether it's torture, corporal punishment, capital punishment, "schoolyard fights", domestic violence, authority figures (such as police) using or not using various forms of physical force/violence, or any other REAL WORLD issue connected to violence, it is a very useful comparison/contrast when matching up against the FICTIONAL violence in various media formats and how an individual, organization, and/or government official treats each.

Frankly, I find it an odd argument to make that using such comparison/contrast isn't valid. There are some comparison/contrasts that are only partly vaild while others can be compared/contrasted to a greater degree. An example of partials would be the use of comparison/contrast of alcohol and tobacco to various media formats. While the products themselves are vastly different and have different effects, positive OR negative, on the users, the comparison/contrast of the AGE LIMITING laws can be valid arguments.

So, yes, comparing the arguments of REAL WORLD violence versus FICTIONAL violence is rather interesting and valid.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
So its Ok to waterboard people in real life?

But its not ok to waterboard people in video games?
@smeagol23

Its entirely possible that I'm wrong on that one. I had heard that he had originally signed on to the bill during his time in the senate
Romney got pwned.
We can always look forward to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo
The Fairness Doctrine would effectively hamper one of Fred Thompson's largest potential support systems ie Talk Radio. It's not likely that he would be for it.
I would prefer that America had a President Obama, but if it doesn't go that way, then it damn well better be President McCain.
why won't anything psot for me?
Broken Scope Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:10 am

Oh god I had a horrible dream last night, somehow Romney won the republican nomination and Hillary the democrat.

This scares me more than any other. I do not want my first time to vote to go to either of these.
...
The only reason the term waterboarding even exists is because it's pretty hard to argue that "water torture" isn't torture.
I dislike Romney intensely. However I appreciate the reasoning behind his waterboarding answer (or lack thereof), even though he did a terrible job of explaining it.

If I were POTUS, I would not allow waterboarding to be done. But I wouldn't confirm or deny that it's being done either, so that it would be lurking in the back of terrorists' minds when they get caught. In fact, I'd probably have the CIA or whoever set up the scariest fake torture chamber ever seen since the Spanish Inquisition right by the incoming prisoner processing area. Iron maidens, racks, pool full of alligators, a stereo with the Brittney Spears discography, you name it. And all for the purpose of bluffing.

Psy-war is fun. :p
All this talk of torture techniques in political confirmations and debates strikes me as curious. Don't interpret what I'm about to say as an endorsement OR a condemnation of waterboarding, but what the heck are we supposed to use, harsh language??? Yeesh. I can't help but think the international criminal community probably sees detention by US authorities as a summer walk through the park. (filled with daisies.) Stay out of Guantanemo and you're golden. What do interrogators do anymore? "PLEASE tell us your secrets. We'll give you a cookie!" I'm inclined to think we should probably abide by the Geneva convention and leave it at that.

As to the larger issues of games in the debate, I'm not one bit surprised we never showed up. I don't know what Hal Halpin's trippin' on, but he needs to share with the rest of us. The ugly truth is the republicans are backpedaling like crazy right now, if only because of Bush. They CANNOT afford to upset the the stuffy moral conservatives, whom many consider to be their voting backbone. Last time I checked the "moral values" conservatives are generally thought to be the reason Bushie got his second term. That said: these guys are either in JT's camp, or they ban video games because they fear games will turn their children into mysterious shut-in's who never go outside of their own free will. (we'll call them the morlock children); Then there's the ever-popular, games-are-for-kids camp, who just automatically think video games are immature, and that adults who play them are social throwbacks.

The point is the GOP candidates can't afford to alienate these conservatives by discussing video games intelligently. Even if they wanted to.
@Wengler

Apparently, you haven't read the comments well enough. I'd say most of us here are against it.
Ok time to throw out the logical progression comparision here...

I used to be ok with the whole torturing the bad guys thing until I took the devil's advocate position out of curiousity to the other side of the argument.

Many here are condoning the use of torture for the greater good. The greater good being that a terrorist attack or simply many lives being lost in some hideous manner was thwarted due to information that was crucial to finding and stopping that group was revealed.

Heroic and ideal but not logically sound. This means you're trying to stop the enemy by using information they're providing you under duress. I don't know about you but I would not gamble hundreds, thousands, millions of lives on such information.

So now for the logical tie in. Let's stick with the torture but change the stance from saving lives to saving our video games as we know it. We take anti-gaming extremists and torture them to find out how they plan to undermine our gaming. What do you think you'd get after the torture? Would you believe what was said?

The end does not justify the means.

I don't care what others may call me for saying torture isn't right. That's because I care about getting information right because the source is more trustworthy.
@Benji

It's a damn poor arguement really... i mean, the very fact that a regular married can choose not to have children throws that arguement right out. If the basis for preventing same sex marriage was the fact that they could not breed then it should be illegal for regular couples to get married if they do not plan on having children... really, choosing not to breed and not being able to breed are not very different. Not to mention that a same-sex couple always have the option of adopting children... frankly, why breed new children when we still got children without parents.
@illspirit

Y'know, i don't think waterboarding sounds scary enough to "lurk" in the backs of terrorists minds... grant it, i'd wager to guess that terrorist probably think our politicans and leaders are all completly lying whenever they say we are againt torture and think we use the most horrible technics known to man. Afterall, they believe americans to be evil white devils and all that other shit; what kind of evil white devil would NOT use torture?... So the idea that they will be tortured probably lurks in the backs of their minds no matter what we say.
@jkd

Your core political and social values are founded on a form of ambigious, cruel, and metaphysically absurd assumptions about the natural world. Such an obscene level of superstition is your right to believe in, but your superstition -- and that of other evangelicals -- does not obligate anyone else to believe such trash; NOR does it justify ANY POLICY that is justified by moral norms derived from superstitious hate.

"1. 1. I am an evangelical Christian, as Huckabee is. I also believe life begins at conception. This does not make me superstitious or anti-woman."

By analytic definition, you and Huckabee are guilty of superstition in the sense that you wish to stip away the rights of other free and autonomous beings in this country. Your absurd moral stance on the issue of abortion, derived from the 100Xth edition of 3,000 year old text that glorifies a genodical, child killing, monster, generates NO ARGUMENT that can justify the oppresion and assault you wish to commit on the rights of women in this nation. Pro-Life? Fine. That is YOUR CHOICE, and remains SELF-OBLIGATING. Keep your superstitious hate to yourself and leave the rights of women alone.

"2. I also believe in Biblical Creation. This does not make me anti-science, nor does it make it me an idiot."

You do not believe in evolution at the expense of Biblical Creation(a theory derived from a false and antiquated source that lacks even the most basic forms of emperical evidence). I could understand how you could be Pro-Science if you rejected evolution on the grounds of emperical skepticsm, lack of evidence, or evidential indifference. But, the fact you believe in a collection of fairy tales that suggest that an elaborate GEO-CENTRIC universe was created in a minute split second destroys ANY "pro-science" claim you might want to make. Idiot? Well, most of us would be likly to posit such a judgment on a man ran down the street and thought the universe was shitted from the anus of an inner-dimensional space worm and provided no evidence for his belief... sadly enough, your own beliefs have just about as much evidence (if not less, do to contradictions).

"3. I, again like Huckabee, don’t believe in same sex marriage. Whether or not the Federal Government needs to get involved is another matter entirely."

Why? Because the same book that instructs you to murder pagans, rape enemies of Israel, plunder cities, stone innocent women, cower before a war God, enslave yourself to escape eternal torture, and spread superstitious hate about the world tells you that homosexuals are creatures of sin? Do not believe this is an aspect of your ambigious religion? Shall I cite the Bible for you? I'm sorry, but this argument is not sufficent enough to dislodge a homosexual couple's right to happiness and equal protection under the law. Again, keep your superstitious hate to yourself.

"4. I also support capital punishment. If nothing else it deters that one person from ever hurting anyone ever again."

Mmmmm... conservative logic. Pro-Life but Pro-Death penality at the same time. I take it that you know that virtually every major branch of Christianity opposes the death penality? Ressentiment has no greater example! NO metaphysical or emperically valid link has EVER been proven between the death penalty and deterence. In fact, murder rates are lowest in areas without the death penalty; especially on an international scale. I know that conservatives love cowering in fear before things -- be it before God, imagined threats, or anything that bursts their little consumeristic bubble -- but please do not suggest that solitary confinement in a max. security prison could not prevent someone from killing again. On top of this, the price of executing someone is just about equal to life in prison. Furthermore, do you really want death threats to be the ONLY reason why someone does not murder another? Death penalty supporters are left with one thing to support their barbaric fasination with a practice that virtually no other democracies practice: lusting in the fumes of retributive justice. Yes, my evangelical friend, breath in the true values that your religion breeds.

@ John Server

If you are NOT against waterboarding (AKA TORTURE) you are either:

1. A shiftless cowardly idiot who is too scared to fight terrorism in a honorable and decent way. Stand up for the values you claim to champion. Do not cower behind artifical threats propagated by perverse politicans and become the very monsters you claim to hate. Our stance of torture helps cement our position as a moral authority in the arena of international ethics. So many conservatives cower in fear when it comes time to actually sacrifice something for their nation; be it by higher tax rates, helping your fellow citizens, protecting our nation's enviroment, or fighting REAL terrorism in a morally consistent way.

2. A relic of what Nietzche described as the process of self-contradictory ressentiment. Firstly, you claim to support decency and human rights, but only when those rights are politically convient. Secondly, you true values actually LOVE concepts like torture and inflicting pain on other human beings. Pick your values and remain consistent. Do you oppose torture, or do you take the cowardly route and only approve of it when your own hide is on the line? Pick between ethical honor or ethical cowardice. You can't have both.
If it means saving American lives, then I'm for torture. However, it should be used as a last resort ONLY.
@ illspirit: the problem with allowing the assumption we torture to persist is that it will make it much more likely for other people to use torture on us.

if we were at war with country X (e.g. China), and they assume we aren't going by the Geneva Convention in regard to torture, they will see no reason to stand by rules the US isn't following.
if we let this stand, then our service members taken POW as well as civilians kidnapped, should just expect to be tortured.
ah yes, that's the Pandralisk we know and love. might even have a point if it wasn't buried in vitriolic hate and religion bashing.
Hey, I just scored on my Pandralisk bingo card!

Normally I'd be above responding to his absolute idiocy but this stood out to me.

"stone innocent women"

Oh wait, didn't Jesus STOP a group of religious people in His day of stoning a woman by saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" I'm pretty sure I remember that being in there somewhere.

As far as the "It's okay to torture because it's to protect the American people!" I would like anyone who says that to watch a little series called Death Note. The main character starts out with a plan to kill all the criminals in the world, and once they're all dead, everyone will be happy and loving and he will be cherished by everyone and chosen to rule this new world!

Except he gets so caught up in his agenda that he becomes exactly like the criminals he's murdering. One can never bring about good by doing evil, and torturing anyone, even terrorists, will never protect this country but only harm it further.
I will bash religion when it promotes values that encourage murder, racism, homophobia, slavery, inconsistency, hate, torture, death threats, and superstition.

I would be fine with Christians if they did two things:

1. Jesus was actually a wonderful person who preached loved and tolerance. He informed others that they had an obligation to help their fellow people and practice many morally upstanding values. The terrific character of Jesus is destroyed by the angry, hateful, and insane war God depicted in the Old Testament. "God" amounts to little more than a child killing, genocidal, racist, homophobe, torturous, and morally perverted bully. I would be far more likly to embrace Christians if Jesus had rejected the entire OT, OR modern Christians rejected it. As it stands, Christianity has little -- if any -- validity.

As it stands, the perverse actions of their immoral God contradict their moral ethical systems [and the values of Jesus]. To claim that one can somehow "pick through" a supposedly infalliable source that grants their beliefs validity and discard text at their whim represents a grave epistomogical error. It is even worse when the text self-contradicts itself in so many blatant and obvious ways.

2. Religious conservatives must practice consistent values. They must stop their attack on the rights of Americans and embrace the true values of Christ.
@Pandralisk

Ah how cute. You actually think you can proke me with that little diatribe. Dude I faced way better than you and always came out with my faith intact. The fact that you can lob your spurious accusations against someone you don't even know only goes to show your own bigotry.

heh. Though its nice to know I still have the touch. Thanks for that. :)

Oh. Just for your own edification there are numerous reasons that I believe in the things that I do. However, I talk about those on my own blog. I've no desire to waste Dennis's time nor bandwith talking about things that are that far off topic most of the time.

Anyway. Yeah I'll agree that waterboarding is torture and immoral. If anyone can speak on that issue with any degree of credibility its McCain.
Calling God a murderer is much the same as calling all police officers who have had to use their weapon on the job murders as well. If taken out of context, yeah police officers are murderers.
@ Skylar

"Is torturing known terrorists in order to gain information that could save the lives of my countrymen and women bad? I don’t think so."


Perhaps you should take into consideration that torture is an extremely ineffective means of obtaining information. Torture in most cases simply results in false confessions, which lead to more time and money being wasted pursuing false leads. Torture is not only inhumane, it simply doesn't work effectively.

Also, do you want the type of person who's capable of committing these actions against people as a free citizen in your country - much less one that's supposed to be protecting people? People are people, be they friend or foe, and how we treat one another matters.

And before anyone says anything, conflicts such as battles are different. In a battle, you are acting defensively. You are protecting yourself. When you are torturing someone, you are not. You're simply proving your capacity for inflicting cruelty upon others.
Does anyone else get a chuckle when Pandralisk mentions two of the reasons he despises Christianity is hate and racism? Big fucking boatloads of hypocrisy there. Those who have no morals shouldn't discuss them.
Guys, can we just accept Pandralisk as a far-left version of Jack Thompson and commence with ignoring the hatemonger?
@Erik

True. Morality amounts to little more than what you make of it for yourself, and your obligation to respect the freedom of a person up until that person causes immediate harm or takes away the freedom of another.

Superstitious hate that self-contradicts itself is hardly morally attractive, or plausible, let alone a universal maxim.

Moral contradictions intrinsic (and EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE BIBLE) within Christianity breed hate (contemporary and historical) towards a wide range of ethinic groups, sexual preferences, moral systems, non-believers. Christians are not content with keeping their religion to themselves. The religion, as CLEARLY STATED IN THE BIBLE and ENFORCED BY HUNDREDS OF THOUNANDS OF CHRISTIANS, enforce their perverse moral norms, as we see whenever Christian advocacy groups hide under the label of the "family" to assault games intended for adult audience, by taking away the freedom of others: be it the freedom to marry one another freely, practice forms of consentual sexuality and violence, express oneself artistically, and control the function of one's body (to name a few).

Christianity has been wed with political forces since the birth of this nation. Christianity lies at the heart of most attacks against the rights of other people and the freedom to live life without harming others. It's not off-topic in this case, and 99% of the cases when I bring it up.
I second Phantom's post.

Dennis has already expressed his concern towards Pandralsik a couple of times before, and just like ol' Jackie before him, he ignores it and continues his completely off-topic rants.
I do not see how people call me a "hate monger" when I simply posit values on a diety that are CLEARLY STATED IN THE BIBLE and encourage us to respect the rights of one another.

Nor do I see how the analogy with JT is accurate when I am PERFECTLY WILLING to allow Christians to worship in peace; provided that they do not force their superstition into law or assault the freedom of others.

Again, I am so sorry if your sheltered and absurd understanding of "God" has been defiled obscene values that are in the bible. The genocidal, child killing, racist, and homophobic nature of "God" speaks for itself.
Pandra,
Dennis has asked you not to go off on these tirades when they have nothing to do with the story.

All you're doing is being hateful yourself.
@DavCub

No, I'm tired of watching people deflame my character because they are so biased and sheltered in their beliefs that they no longer see the connections between an analytical deconstruction of a concept [Christianity] and how the concept is being used to attack gaming, freedom, and peace in this country.

If anything, intolerent and absurd critics who never really defeat or address my core points, are spewing hate against me.

I do not wish to prevent Christians from preaching hate and worshipping a genocidal child killer [please, if you do not believe this claim about the nature of God, read your Bibles]. That is their given right as an American, but I will not tolerate when their superstitious hate motivates an act of censorship, industry regulation, or any of the topics dicussed in this thread.

Stop hoisting religion on a special altar that makes it immune to critcism.
Damn, bingo again.
I kind of went a little off-topic here myself, so I don't want to come off like a hypocrite, but... Pandralisk, you clearly either choose not to or are incapable of discussing religious issues civily, and your posts almost always go into the realm of off-topic vitriolic rants. Your first post in this thread wasn't as bad as normal, and this thread was already more related to normal politics than is usual for an article here, so I kept quiet, but now that you are back to your old self, I will just politely remind you that you were warned about this by Dennis in another article.

My apologies to all here for my own somewhat off-topic comments made to the1jeffy, though I think mine were at least not on the level of bashing rants.
@ Pendralisk

"I do not wish to prevent Christians from preaching hate and worshipping a genocidal child killer [please, if you do not believe this claim about the nature of God, read your Bibles]. That is their given right as an American, but I will not tolerate when their superstitious hate motivates an act of censorship, industry regulation, or any of the topics dicussed in this thread."

Please don't generalize all of us as hateful idiots. There are those of us who realize that the Bible was made by man and as such is riddled with inaccuracies. I for one view it as more of a collection of fables and a general guide on how to be a good person - particularly the New Testament, sans genocidal wrath-of-God moments.

Your generalizations are just as hateful in the manner with which you convey them as the acts of bigotry you claim to be opposed to. I wish more atheists and agnostics would realize this when going on their anti-religion tirades.

Also, staying on topic if FTW.
Wow, I don't think there's anyone I particularly want to vote for. The GOP is full of hypocritical asshole's, and the Democratic Party's not much better. And Mitt...I hope to God he does NOT get nominated/become President. Or any other conservative for that matter. We need a new mind set in the White House...
"I want to bash your moral character, so stop bashing mine!" ~Pandralisk
@Pandralisk
now, i would generally agree with you on issues of religious importance, but i think i speak for everybody on this site when i say "we know your stance on religion, but this topic is about something else, even if it has its roots in religion, so just shut up"
btw, the good candidate here is clinton. i dont care how you feel about some of her policies, and in fact i disagree with some of what she says, but i believe that the experience she brings to the table (not experience as first lady, that doesnt count, but instead bill's experience, and all the loyal clinton aides she'll bring) is invaluable. otherwise the 2008 election is a crapshoot
Uh... I assume nobody would want to see the ESRB to enforce M-Ratings on their own instead of government intervention, oy?
being a bigot against people you think are bigots doesn't make you not a bigot.
...and my suggestion, oy?
I'm not much of a Romney fan, but I fail to see how waterboarding is at all related to this issue. Waterboarding can potentially save lives in the real world (or at least this is what Romney believes)

Romney's erroneous reasoning leads him to conclude controlling game sales could save the lives of school students. He is wrong on this issue, (and perhaps wrong on water boarding, though I'm not completely against it given the kind of people we're using it against) but I don't think his position is hypocritical.

And I didn't expect any of the questions to be about gaming, as I said yesterday. The other issues are far more important, and in the eyes of politicians, games are either a non-issue or something to condemn for votes.
@Pandralisk

Some quotes that u might want to take in consideration.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving.” ~Dale Carnegie

“Criticism, like rain, should be gentle enough to nourish a man's growth without destroying his roots.” ~ Frank A Clark

“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.” ~ Benjamin Franklin

“One mustn't criticize other people on grounds where he can't stand perpendicular himself” ~ Mark Twain

“Criticism is the disapproval of people, not for having faults, but having faults different from your own.” ~unknown

"The problem with fault-finding is that he who finds fault with others is in no way a happy person. Even after he has successfully accomplished his task." ~Sri Chinmoy

"Criticism is an indirect form of self-boasting." ~Emmet Fox

"The biggest critics of my books are people who never read them." ~Jackie Collins

I think that is enough for now.
@Chalts

I'm sorry, but there's nothing that justifies water torture. Its unreliable and its sickening. We're the United States blast it all, we're not supposed to do this kind of shite.

We're supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to abide by the rule of law, not the rule of vengence.

I can't support someone for President who can't see that and is more interested in doing the Washington Two Step than being real with people.
@ Chalts

Romney opposes violence in video games, yet he cannot condemn the use of torture against another human being.

How is it hard to spot the hypocrisy in that?
@jkdjr25

Agreed on Romney's two stepping, but I'm still not sure about water boarding. Not that I think calling it torture is far-fetched, but that I don't object to using it--very sparingly, and only if nothing else is working--to get information. If it is, as you say, unreliable, then the CIA will likely stop/has already stopped using it for this reason.

And I didn't mean to imply that we should use it for vengeance, not at all. I meant that I simply can't feel sorry for someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed undergoing it.
@Chalts

Fair enough. Maybe I'm just an idealist but I don't believe in doing such things.
By the way, I happened to catch some of the debates on my lunch break. To those of you saying "Oh, there were more important issues, I can see why video games didn't get mentioned!"

Want to know one of the questions I saw asked while I was on lunch?

"Mayor Giuliani, you say you're a die-hard Yankees fan, but how do you justify rooting for the Red Sox in the World Series this year?"

Oh yeah, that's WAY more important than video game related questions...
Is anybody here actually SURPRISED that no video game questions popped up?
Oh, and about the torture thing... we're not waterboarding our kids, we're waterboarding Islamic fanatics who want to kill Americans. So, how can you say it's a contradiction?
Macboy,

Given the fact that America's paranoia against Muslims in general has reached a certain point, there is a high chance that they would end up waterboarding an innocent man who was on vacation.
Pandralisk -- "The terrific character of Jesus is destroyed by the angry, hateful, and insane war God depicted in the Old Testament."

This is why you're an idiot. You do realize that Jesus came AFTER the Old Testament, right? (Hence the designation of "OLD" and "NEW" in the Testaments.) "Christianity" by it's very name is a follower of "Christ."

The Old Testament is kept in the modern Bible to show where we came from. The New Testament is there to bring the religion forward and to show how to be better human beings. You can't bring yourself to being a better human being without knowing where it is we came from.

You can't say the teachings of Christ are destroyed by the actions of the Old Testament BECAUSE HE DIDN'T EXIST THEN! This would be like calling me responsible for World Wars I & II because I'm German, even though I didn't live through either event. This is why your "harmless" arguments are really nothing but nonsensical bashing of religion. You don't understand what you're bashing, yet you keep flailing about trying to make a point when everyone else in this forum, for the past several months, has grown sick of you and has been telling you to shut the fuck up.
@ Macboy....

they'll just sweep it under the floor like it never happened.... :(

they tend to overlook it because it not a "real" issue to talk about.

most of us are in age range right now are 20-25 up we seen the evolution of the indusrty, we seen the good and bad on videogames, we couldnt vote back then but now its like, ok its our turn and here are some of the issue i want to talk about.
@Pandralisk



First of all what you have to realize is that your PERSONAL interpretation of the bible is just that an interpretation. Claiming your opinion as fact does nothing but further prove you are a hatemonger.

"Christians are not content with keeping their religion to themselves."

And thus you admit yourself a hatemonger bigot.

Saying that Christians are like this is akin to saying that jews are money hording bankers or that blacks are criminals.

No, some Jewish people are on welfare and some black people are on the police force.

When you realize that it is PEOPLE, each one an individual, not a religion that is attacking your rights only then can you raise yourself above the status of your average Klansman.


The point that there are Christians here WHICH YOU CONSTANTLY IGNORE THE EXISTENCE OF that are also fighting for their rights proves your theory about Christians wrong. But I've not been able to convince anyone on the racist Stormfrong website that they are wrong about black people so I don't have any delusions about convincing a bigot of another vein either.


"The religion, as CLEARLY STATED IN THE BIBLE and ENFORCED BY HUNDREDS OF THOUNANDS OF CHRISTIANS, enforce their perverse moral norms, as we see whenever Christian advocacy groups hide under the label of the “family” to assault games intended for adult audience, by taking away the freedom of others: be it the freedom to marry one another freely, practice forms of consentual sexuality and violence, express oneself artistically, and control the function of one’s body (to name a few)."

Again, there are also Christians on the other side of the issue. AND there are atheists for censorship as well. But you don't see in anything except for black and white do you?


"Again, I am so sorry if your sheltered and absurd understanding of “God” has been defiled obscene values that are in the bible. The genocidal, child killing, racist, and homophobic nature of “God” speaks for itself."

That is all half-truth, flat out lies and things taken out of context. Maybe you should play attention to some of the games you at least say you play. Here is a little spoiler, sometimes the good guys have to kill people.


"o, I’m tired of watching people deflame my character because they are so biased and sheltered in their beliefs that they no longer see the connections between an analytical deconstruction of a concept [Christianity] and how the concept is being used to attack gaming, freedom, and peace in this country."


WHAT THE FUCK? You are wondering why people defame your character? Am I reading that right. Your post is nothing but constant bigoted hatred and venom towards the Christians here and you wonder why people defame you?

Newton's Law. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you are feeling defamed its because you threw down the hate gauntlet first skippy.


"[please, if you do not believe this claim about the nature of God, read your Bibles]"

Have you realized yet that this is your personal and not very well backed up opinion. The bible has been studied and read for a fucking long time. Even a theology student here has called your claims idiotic. And you have to wonder why people, even many agnostic people, who read the bible how so few people come up with your opinion.

Get over yourself. You are not the first person to read the bible. So when you say "read your bibles" too late, many have. So get over yourself and take your Hot Topic faux intellectualism elsewhere.
The most amusing thing is that Jesus would probably hang out with Pandralisk. He has done things like saving sinners from being stoned to death and hung out with prostittutes and tax men. And Pandralisk isn't too much worse off than either of those.

Though the prostitutes probably wouldn't hang out with Pandralisk, they need to set *some* standards.
But do the religious zealots not always believe that God always wins in the end? So what are those zealots worried about?
Yeah... violent video games are a major issue, but waterboarding people is no biggie...

He WONT get my vote and I usually do vote republican.
@The debate

Good points on McCain. I've been concerned over him because he seems to be pandering to much to the loony types who think we need to have a Holy War against Islam, but he and Ron Paul are the least distasteful GOP candidates. Obama definitely seems like the best of the lot.

@Pandralisk
You know, I think religion is a useless burden on humanity and has never accomplished anything accept hold back reason to satisfy archaic traditions, but A) I don't think this is a good forum for launching into lengthy pontifications, as they tend to meander off topic into tangential ranting, and B) be funnier and more to the point about it, like:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
@Erik

“And thus you admit yourself a hatemonger bigot. Saying that Christians are like this is akin to saying that Jews are money hording bankers or that blacks are criminals. No, some Jewish people are on welfare and some black people are on the police force. When you realize that it is PEOPLE, each one an individual, not a religion that is attacking your rights only then can you raise yourself above the status of your average Klansman.”

And thus you are clearly ignorant of the biblically justified requirement to spread the moral standards of the faith and the actions of virtually every major branch of Christianity (both contemporary and historically). Your false analogy is almost absurd in nature: I do not recall a central authoritative text that grants one’s “blackness” its validity. Even if a Christian chooses to ignore these aspects of their faith, please identify one mainstream branch of Christianity that supports violence and sexual content in adult games, affirms the rights of homosexuals to marry freely, defends a woman's right of choice, denounces God's acts of terrorism and murder as described in the OT, and does not threaten nonbelievers with the promise of divinely sanctioned eternal torture. Then, if such a strange and internally defeating version of Christianity exists without contradiction, you MIGHT be able to call me a bigot in the most narrow meaning of the term.

When will you realize that the CONTENT of a religion can drive people to ASSAULT the rights of others and that this assault is the MORAL NORM that the overwhelming majority of religious followers subscribe to? Keep sweeping the moral absurdity and empirical reality of this perverted religion under the carpet because it is not going to disappear anytime soon.
“Again, there are also Christians on the other side of the issue. AND there are atheists for censorship as well. But you don’t see in anything except for black and white do you?”

And does this excuse Christians who favor censorship of their crimes? Furthermore, since the religion demands censorship and moral oppression, how do believers who choose to ignore a central portion of the text that grants their beliefs authority in the first place maintain a consistent and internally justified belief system? They don't. I’ll be the first person to criticize an atheist argument against freedom, and I will criticize such an argument with as much passion and care I put into the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of criticism directed at this industry from the value system of Christian hate.

“That is all half-truth, flat out lies and things taken out of context. Maybe you should play attention to some of the games you at least say you play. Here is a little spoiler, sometimes the good guys have to kill people.”

Again, Read the Book of Deut., Leviticus, Revelations, and Numbers (to name a few). Unless you manipulate literal and intended interpretation of the text in an abstract manner, you will see that the aforementioned values were committed by God. ONLY IF you change the meaning of the terms, or exclude the portions of the text that portray God as a genocidal child killer (among many other things), can you escape these charges; in other words, the task is etymologically impossible.

Here is a REAL spoiler: a "good guy" does not order a gay person to be put to death, a woman to be stoned into oblivion, throwing people into eternal torture for finite ignorance, slaughtering innocent children through floods and hellfire, demanding the pillage and rape of innocent cities, and an entire range of ethical violations that harm people (the list is far too extensive and evil to list in its entirety). I suppose Christians will simply keep holding this perverse "God" of murder to contradictory, sick, and disgusting ethical standards out of both ignorance and fear. After all, you wouldn't want to be tortured for all eternity for questioning the “goodness” of God or demanding evidence for your superstition, would you Christian friends?

And of course a theology student would be so indoctrinated in a Judeo-Christian reaffirmation of “just” Biblical interpretation that they refuse to see the child murder that is their intrinsically evil "God." Do you think that we should trust the arguments of someone who has already decided that a text possesses divine authority before the fully understand the document (especially when they were indoctrinated with a perverse interpretation of the text as a child)?

I say to you, take your theistic coddling, intolerance of my freedom to express myself, and ignorance toward the enemies of this industry elsewhere.

@Erik
Sorry, I don't respond to comments posted to deliberately flame myself or anyone else. Grow up.
@Dog_Welder

“The Old Testament is kept in the modern Bible to show where we came from. The New Testament is there to bring the religion forward and to show how to be better human beings. You can’t bring yourself to being a better human being without knowing where it is we came from.”

And that is why you clearly do not understand Christianity. Christ did NOT refute the teachings of the Old Testament, and the majority of all Christian sects advocate the idea that Christ is a METAPHYSICAL PART of God. Christ’s own divinity owes itself to the traditions of the OT and the ethical laws it established. If you claim the OT does not carry authoritative weight, you are in violation of the ONLY justifying evidence for the divinity of Christ if you refute the OT and reinterpret the Bible in away to create your own “non-crazy OT genocidal” image of “God.”

“God,” as described in the Old Testament, is a genocidal murderer. This is a fact that you either must accept or emancipate yourself from. Most Christians are good people and cling to superstition because they do not realize that their act of crafting God around whatever they wish God to be, renders the concept of God obsolete. Any authoritative moral claim becomes absolutely nihilist when Christianity is neutered in such a way. And let us reflect on the NT for a moment. Even if you refute the notion of the trinity, how do you excuse Jesus of not explicitly denouncing the actions of “God,” and counter his testimony in favor of the OT?

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)
ya know, not a single question from anyone under 21.
'@ Buckeye531 (formerly general531)'

If it means saving American lives, then I’m for torture. However, it should be used as a last resort ONLY.'

American lives?... I find that statement highly amusing, yet deeply disturbing at the same time.

I agree with Kawauso
'torture is an extremely ineffective means of obtaining information'

I have watched documentaries on torture and essentially it is useless because the wrong people end up being tortured BECAUSE they wont answer questions they don't know the answer too. Eventually they cave under the torture and say whatever they're 'suppose to'.

In all honesty, video game policy is trivial in comparison with the subject of torture so I am not surprised torture got preference. However, I am unaware of all the questions raised and would probably fine some of the other less improtant than that of video game legislation.
@pandralisk
Your ignorance of the bible and the Christian faith is laughable at best.

I ask, what do you hope to accomplish here?
What do you hope to gain by defaming the Christian faith?
The question about video games is a part of a question about the kind of judges the candidates would nominate to the courts. and many of them did answer that question, conservative/states rights judges.

The same kind of judges that would overturn Roe v Wade and send abortion back to the states would do the same thing with video games. Each state would be able to make its own laws.
@DigDug

I don't really see that. States have already tried to make laws, and they failed. A states' rights judge isn't going to suddenly give states the ability to override the first amendment. There was no "Roe vs Wade" for video games, there's nothing to overturn regarding them.
That audience flip flops more than Mitt Romney. Zing! Anyways, I unfortunately can't say I am surprised that the debate didn't have any video game questions. Come on, they were to busy asking whether the potential leader of the US believed word-for-word whats in a book and how many guns they own.
@ everyone giving points against pandralisk

don't bother. he's going to simply say the same thing over and over again. A combination of ignorance, arrogance, pride, and just plain stupidity will never let pandralisk agree with you guys. same goes for jack thompson.
Mad_Scientist

States have tried to make laws and failed because lower courts interpret the 1st Amend based on decisions by essentially liberal supreme courts of the past several decades. A conservative court would change that, maybe not with just one case but with many over a couple decades (if they became a majority). There is no Roe v Wade for video games now, but there could be in the future. Then youve got to ask yourself, what kind of judges would you want to decide it?
@DCOW

True, I will continue critiquing religious hate and superstition when it lies at the heart of censorship attempts in this industry. A combination of truth, honesty, unbiased critique, and consistent logic will never stop me from refuting the lies of an internally contradictory religious system that is being used to stomp our a great deal of freedom and rights in this country.

And I've yet to see a decent reply to my LITERAL DECONSTRUCTION [fancy interpretation is NOT needed, I am sticking to straight formalism here, folks... the bible is so perverse that its moral short comings do not need special forms of interpretation. It appears that many of you are either ignorant of your religion, in a state of denial, contradicting yourselves, or truly supporting a perverse religious system] of the Bible. Why do people try to wiggle out of claims that state that their own religious text clearly identifies "God," and many of his moral maxims, as genocidal, child killing, racist, homophobic, pro-torture, death threatening, and hateful to describe it nicely? See the contradictions in either your religious text, the bizzare image of God that you have created for yourself through the process of selective interpretation, or your daily moral values.
@DigDug

I still don't understand what you mean by the Roe vs Wade analogy. The thing is, states had already succeeded in passing laws restricting abortion, and then Roe vs Wade came along and overturned them. If Roe vs Wade was reversed, states could try and pass abortion laws again.

But there's never been any successful state law restricting video game sales that I know of, and there's never been any federal ruling overturning them afterwards. And I highly doubt even a conservative Supreme Court will find video games to be not protected under the 1st amendment, assuming any case ever even makes it that far. As far as I know, only a single judge ever tried to make that absurd statement.
Mad_Scientist

Abortion wasnt illegal till states started passing laws either. Then the supreme court (a liberal court) stepped in an overturned the state laws. Same thing could happen with laws censoring video games. Youre assuming that a law censoring video game will never pass. This is a new area of law and politicians will continue to keep trying to pass new laws. Once one law gets through and the supreme court rules it constitutional then there will be an avalanche.

Many conservatives dont even believe that the Bill of Rights (including the 1st amend) applies to the states, they think its only suppose to be enforced on the federal govt. Thats what federalism/states rights is. There are justices on the court now that believe that (Scalia and Thomas for two). What happens if they get a majority? Its not absurd. Youre spoiled by a liberal interpretations of the 1st amend over the last couple decades, but that could change.

Nite. Ill bring this up again on another thread. Unless this one is still going tomorrow.
Minor clarification about my previous post, I wasn't saying what you were posting was absurd, but that the view that video games aren't protected by the 1st amendment was absurd.
@ KI3

It seems like it is alright to talk about the problems of everyone except for the problems caused by jews...
Even though they have so much power over people because they are good at having control over people, I will say the truth...
The history books would keep on talking about how terrible it was of the Germans to go after the jews and yet left out what the jews was doing to the Germans to cause the Germans to go after them. The jews was doing the same kind of stuff that they are doing now with the Palestinians when it comes to greed.


It troubles me that opinions like this can pass without comment here on GP, so I have to say that I'm afraid you have been fed bogus information. Sorry, but anybody who says that the Jews brought the Holocaust upon themselves or that it was deserved has failed to study history closely enough, or have a proper appreciation of even basic causality. Disagree with me? Good! Go and do some research of your own, instead of repeating received 'wisdom'!

Btw - there is a massive difference between being Jewish and being Israeli - one is a religion and cultural heritage, the other is a nationality.

Oh, and by the way, with regards to your last sentence - how does one equate the bulldozing of peoples homes (for example) with greed? I can't make head or tail of that statement. Especially when you factor in legislation like Germany's Nuremburg Laws of 1935.

I'm afraid it seems you've fallen prey to anti-semitic propaganda.
@ KI3

Even though they have so much power over people because they are good at having control over people

Sorry - but what does this even mean? What is your basis for this claim - in what way are they (and I suppose you mean each and every single jew) good at having control over people? Have you any evidence or examples to back up this notion?

How is this manifested? Is it genetic? Do they have special "control other people" classes they teach their kids? Hypnosis, maybe? I'm at a loss...
@K13

If I honesty didn't think you had been lied to, I would be calling you a Nazi right now. The Jews had done NOTHING to the German people. Many of them had fought heroically for Germany in the First World War and had the treaty of Versailles come out differently, they would have brought the Weimar Republic into Economic Prosperity.

@Monkeythumbs

I too am disgusted that such comments can get through without comment. If I was here, i'd have said something.
@Pandralisk

Despite my reservations about your Bible Bashing, I find myself agreeing with you. A lot. Your posts, while blatantly anti-christian, do have slightly more than a grain of truth.

If you were to cut down on the bible bashing just a little bit more, like maybe accepting that the Bible might not portray God as he/she actually was, and limiting your rants to only the Christians that bring these things upon them (Good examples are Jack Thompson, and MOST Evangelicals for that matter), then you might get a little more support and agreement.
What would be really nice would be if he'd take his obsessive ranting off to a religion blog somewhere and talk about.... gee... I dunno... Games and Politics?

He derails every damn thread he posts in, mentions games about 1 post in 10 and generally is helping to make this blog unreadable by shoehorning religion in at every possible opportunity.

Comments section on these blogs is fast becoming a waste of time due to the signal/noise problem.
@Pandralisk

You are wrong. I don't feel the need to deconstruct your petty and mean spirited attacks beyond those three simple words.
I've got to agree here, there's a difference between being merely cold on religion and being the anti-religion version of an extremeist. Pandralisks rantings are no more full of hatred and viciousness as some of the more fervent rantings I've heard from the likes of Abu Hamza etc.

Give it a break Pandra, we know your opinion on religion, you don't have to keep repeating it ad infinitum please.
I think, just to add my 2p worth into this, I would like to point out the difference between 2 key terms; religion and faith.

I personally believe that faith is a fantastic thing and I am jealous of those that have it. I wish I cuold believe that there was a god(s) and be presented with an idealogical way of living that is set out to guide me. That is not sarcasm for the record - faith is a great moral guide and social indicator.

I do however have a dislike of religion in general. Religious text are quoted to backup claims and, as we all know, interpretation and context can be made and twisted to meet your ends. On an individual basis, this is not a problem. However, when you give up your ability to think for yourself and put your faith in a preacher instead of your god, I believe that is throroughly dangerous. Texts should be a rough moral guide and taken from the context of when it was written, not applied to modern day life to the letter.

Remember, your god(s) did not write your texts; man did. Man is a self-interested, deceitful and corrupt race, but this fact should never be used as a proof of your faith's worth or lack of. I just wish more people thought for themselves on the finer points of their faith.

(ps. I am an agnostic, though that might be evident)
@Pandralisk


"Sorry, I don’t respond to comments posted to deliberately flame myself or anyone else. Grow up."


Flaming you? Please. A trollish bigoted hatemonger such as yourself has lost all rights to complaining about being flamed in return.
Pandralsik, we're talking to you like this about the subject because, not only are you spreading your interpretation as fact, but basically being a jackass about it. (Not to mention it's off-topic with the whole bloody website.)

This coming from somebody who DOESN'T read the bible, in lack of a better term 'religiously.'
@pandralisk

Why do people try to wiggle out of claims that state that their own religious text clearly identifies “God,” and many of his moral maxims, as genocidal, child killing, racist, homophobic, pro-torture, death threatening, and hateful to describe it nicely?

because my christian god is NOT a genocidal child killing racist homophobic pro-torture death threatening god.
@Pendralisk

How rather ironic. You say you wish to dispell religious hate, yet you come off with nothing but hate to religion.

Pot, meet kettle.

And just for reference all the evils done in the name of religion were done by people, not by some diety in the clouds. People made the choice to kill, oppress, enslave, torture, and force ideas upon others. Perhaps you should be less angry at the religion, and more angry at the idiots who twist and manipulate it for their own goals. Of course that would be too easy, wouldn't it now?

Perhaps we can all get back on topic now?
Where is dennis anyway?

and @pandralisk
You are still wrong.
Forgive them Pandralisk, for they know not what they do...

;)
"Perhaps we can all get back on topic now?"


Yeah, attempting to beat some sense into Klandralisk is becoming somewhat tedious.
So yeah...

Mitt Romney? More like Mitt WRONGNEY, amirite?

Seriously, though, what was supposed the official topic before Pandralisk went and flamed it all up? Is it the lack of questions about game laws, or the fact that Romney's a side-stepping douche? Is it both? I can't really remember.
@ Monkeythumbs and Blackice

For an example, if I started saying bad stuff about the Palestinians, you guys would not be talking bad to me.

If I was saying some of the truth about the jews, you guys would talk to me as if I am a bad person because of the impact jews have on the American society.

Why dont you guys explain why you are on the jews side so much since you are putting me down on this situation.
@KI3

Are you getting mad at Monkeythumbs and Blackice for hypothetically not defending Palestinians after you hypothetically made some racist comments towards them?
@ KI3

For an example, if I started saying bad stuff about the Palestinians, you guys would not be talking bad to me.

That's not even an example, as nothing of that nature has yet happened. Why don't you give it a shot?

If I was saying some of the truth about the jews, you guys would talk to me as if I am a bad person because of the impact jews have on the American society.

Firstly, you've offered no empirical facts that cpould be presented as hartd truth. Secondly, I don't see the relevance of American society at all - especially as I'm European.

Why dont you guys explain why you are on the jews side so much since you are putting me down on this situation.

Nu-uh, doesn't work like that. All I've done is point out that the evidence doesn't fall in your favour. Now *you* have to show me why you're right. That's the nature of debating.
To pandralisk:

While I can certainly understand your confusion on the subject of the bible, there are things which you really need to take into consideration before flipping out on an organization as diverse as the christian church.

First, The bible is old. Like, really old. Attemptiong to judge it's contents without an understanding of the times and culture in which it was developed is pure folly.

Second, Christianity is diverse, with multiple branch's that interpret the bible in different ways and emphasize the old testement to varying degree's. The united church of canada for example, tends to place a fairly low emphasis on much of the old testement.

Third, the core philosophy by my estimation of christianity, is one of love and forgiveness.
@ashla,
Facts like that doesn't matter to pandralisk, all that matters to him is HIS soul interpretation of the Christian faith based on the bible literally using todays terms and definitions. Despite all his defaming of the Christian faith, there is several logical inaccuracies that makes all his arguments mute.

I listen to the Church's interpretation who has been studying the teachings of Jesus, and the bible for --at least-- the past 2000 years
@ Ki3: You make some interesting points, shame all this is so off topic anyway (please don't ban me!).

However… as I said before @btw - there is a massive difference between being Jewish and being Israeli - one is a religion and cultural heritage, the other is a nationality.
Would it kill you Bitchy McRantensteins to get back on topic? Save the religion bashing for forums where such things are topical. ITT, we laugh at Mitt Romney.
1: The reason there are no video's of the concentration camps is because the nazi regime was fastidious in destroying records. Nobody wanted to be linked to the deaths of millions of jews.

2: If your going to cremate bodies, there really is no need to dis-infect them now is there?

3: The gas in question (E.g: cyanide) used was not suited to disinfection.

4: "he came back to help the corruptness of the jewish soceity and in return the jews stabbed him in the back after he went on. The jews would put in their own bible very bad things about Jesus, like he should be tortured and he is a disgrace and so on. After Jesus did all of that great stuff for the jews they have the nerve to stab him in the back so badly."

Please cite the passage of the Tora where they did this. Hell, cite the passage from the BIBLE where the jewish people stabbed him in the back.

5: Nobody here is defending israels heavy handed actions, but if you think the palestinians deserve sympathy when they bomb busses and malls you got rocks in your head.
jkdjr25, formerly bayushisan, and others,

Yes, I can see how you could support an anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage platform without religion as the ONLY reason. Personally, I am anti-abortion, but I don't want a Federal Law banning it as a medical procedure. I don't want gay-marriage enforced by the government (or an Amendment against it), but it should be recognized as equal in the eyes of certain laws. Marriage has long been the domain of religion, and should stay that way. Personally, I support gay couples' rights (Marriage, next-of-kin, etc.), but the Feds shouldn't make certain Christian sects allow it either. Allow churches to form their own


And Pandralisk, buddy, I agree with some of your core ideas, however you demonize one faith structure perhaps a tad bit much. The same unthinking flaws of Christianity are true for unthinking followers of most faiths. In fact, the only faith I have trouble finding zealots in is Buddhism, but even then, there are more radical Buddhists. This is a quality of humanity - that some portion of us will blindly follow; we like to look upward for answers (also seen in our Government). To me, even if you follow the Good Shepard - you are still a sheep. But, I can't fault a willing choice in that direction. The issue becomes one of degree, how do you sort out the willing, thinking followers of a faith and the blind sheep? Personally, I poke their beliefs to see where they lay. If jkdjr25 had simply told me off as a heathen, secularist athiest (none are really true), then I'd know what type of person he is, or I caught him on a bad day. I think your intent is similar, however, your methods sometimes (often) slip into deprecation. Which really isn't very useful.
@DCOW

Can you not READ, my friend? Must I quote the religious tradition you seem to follow wish such blind devotion? Are you implying that the text that grants your beliefs validity in the first place is fundamentally flawed and full of errors that you choose to ignore? As I've said before,

1. Affirm the genocidal, child killing, racist, homophobic, and cruel behavior of the evil God described in the Bible. Admit that he stands for these values, as the text CLEARLY states, and put all of your faith into the power of the written word.

2. Admit you're simply constructing God around whatever you want God to be (ignoring the hateful and insane parts of the Bible). When you do this, it robs your religious thoughts of both validity and any external obligation they might generation to others. Such believers cling to an antiquated series of religious beliefs -- probably fearing eternal torture if you upset the vindictive child "God" in the Bible -- when the beliefs have no empercial, self, or epistomolgical justification.

When you know the Bible is a pile of superstitious nonsense that preaches hate, metaphysical absurdity, and blinds people from the cruel truths of this world, it is perfectly fair to judge by its most literal and contemporary standards. Remember, the fact that the Bible is God's word is the ONLY thing that grants Christianity it's authority.


@~the1jeffy

The problem with your argument with "marriage being the property of religion" is the fact that the government can both marry and recognize the marriage of couples in a completely secular fashion. It is NOT a religious concept. A couple need not be Christian, Jewish, or Islamic to enter into marriage. Basic rights and laws are crafted around marriage. We need to either abolish marriage in the public sector [aka, you get married in the Church. Outside the Church, your marriage has little meaning. Depending on the Church, a gay couple could theoretically get married. All "married" people simply get civil unions and have equal rights] OR simply allow gays to legally marry.

Denying homosexuals the right to marry is a form of biggotry and hate; you're holding two autonomous adults to completely absurd standards derived from personal moral norms. I'm not surprised that so many Christians oppose such a simple and basic right (yet another example of the Bible inspiring hate and intolerance in the world).
how about instead of torture, you either make them play a crappy video game, or watch paulie shore movies, or listen to cher music?
@Pandra

Dude. Seriously.

You need to stop trying to bully people into thinking like you. To be perfectly honest your hatred makes me rather ill. You've been asked repeated to stop, heck I even extended an invite for you to rant somewhere besides here, which would save Dennis a headache or two I'd wager.

As I've said before. You are wrong. I am the mountain and I will not be moved.
@Klandralisk

You yourself are a prime example that the bible doesn't promote hatred and bigotry, but rather its ignorance that knows no race or belief. You say Christians are bigoted and full of hate, but the most hateful and bigoted person here (You) is obviously not a Christian.

So whats YOUR excuse?



Also, learn that your interpretation of the bible is not the only one. My interpretation of Romeo and Juliet is it is not a love story, but rather two horny emo teens who die due to their own stupidity, though that is not a common interpretation now is it?
If taken out of context the police are the worlds most organized criminal group ever. Police officers often kill people(in self defense), Break into people's homes (with a warrant), and steal from people (confiscating evidence). So maybe we should get rid of the scourge of these murderous, thieves who stalk the streets them.

Because, who gives a fuck about context right?
@pandralisk

provide quotes, WITH context, or shut up.
@ E. Zachary Knight
I've to wonder how often you've seen him talk, at the risk of sounding like I'm talking under a tinfoil hat, TV really hasn't been too kind to him (exhibit A this debate, “Do you believe crazy stuff none of the other politicians talk about?” “You can't win GOP, run Independent?” his lack of time also means no one notices every other candidate take his abortion stance alls a sudden, not to mention all the “I stick to my principles no matter what the cost!!” talk rather than actually doing that for 30 years... I'm ranting amn't I? Sorry, back to point...) What really ticked me off (or made my head explode) was you using the word “consistency” but in context (“Ron Paul lacks the consitsancy and drive that a president needs”) I guess you meant speaking clearly/less elderly & I do see what you mean & can only blame the biased circumstance you've seen him in. I'd humbly ask you to YouTube him against Billo Reilly, & against John Gibson (who had to resort to cutting him off :p) If you find any of his 80s interviews you may well notice him say the same stuff he's still saying now.

If, as I'm speculating, that you have a bad impression of him from what you've seen of him on TV that's pretty irritating cos it means plenty of people concluded same :(
So...even though Manhunt 2 got more coverage pre-release than the Republican Debate itself, it didn't merit a question?

WTF?
-We are allowed to kill an enemy combatant, but not torture them. That is fine. Makes sense to me.

-With that, I then personally define torture as pain (mental or physical) where death would be prefered to the torturous action. For example, I would prefer death to being electrocuted day in and day out. I would not however, prefer death to mock drowning, AKA waterboarding.

-This might be a simplistic view of it, but this is how I see it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but mine is that waterboarding is not torture. I respect other views on this though, and understand the sensitivity of this issue.


I must agree with several others that these comments about Romney's position on waterboarding are completely unnecessary and unrelated to anything video game. This is like posting a topic about Hillary's anti-video game crusades and then accompanying it with her position on driver's licenses for illegal US immigrants. While I hope I am wrong, the only reasons for GP making these comments that I can see is to help further create disdain of the GP readers towards Mitt Romney. If this is the case, this is truly insulting to my intelligence. I would prefer to be told everything down the middle (both sides of all issues) and be trusted to make educated decisions and evaluations of my own.
I have been a GP reader and supporter for some time now, but unless there is a retraction, not of the article but of the unnecessary commentary regarding Romney's position on a non-related issue, I will be forced to discontinue supporting and reading GP's forums and related sites.
@Gamers Ryno

Speaking as a person with some close calls as far as it comes to potential drowning, I can't say that I may actually prefer death.
Gamers Ryno.

So it's OK that Romney calls fiction, "a cesspool," but when it comes to an extremely questionable interrogation technique (torture, if you follow the McCain line of thinking), he's able to shrug it off? Either way you spin it, waterboarding is real life pain - and knowing Romney's stance on violent media, you have admit there's a contradiction there.

If you feel it necessary to stop frequenting GP, so be it, but I wouldn't expect a retraction.
What a complete fucking asshole. Videogames aren't okay, but torture is?
I am definately not defending or supporting Romney nor his position on video games. I simply thought the comments of this forum on Romey's other various positions were unnecessary and insulting to our intelligence.

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 11/07/09 at 04:27pm
ZippyDSMlee: man I got alot of junk and dup files too >< god I need orginization...and no not the knee capping media mafia kind :P
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:26pm
ZippyDSMlee: replaced :P
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:23pm
ZippyDSMlee: beemoh:hey its like 60GB porn,400GB anime 100GB games and crap I have took from all my DVDs, I hate waiting on dvds to install stuff..... oh and 40GB of my porn was in the found.000 folder...mostly corrupted.... least I got names of wut needs to be repa
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:18pm
beemoh: @Zip: ...and you'd have to spend all that time re-downloading that porn?
Posted 11/07/09 at 03:34pm
ZippyDSMlee: ggrrrrr......vista lost one of my hard drives and I had a heart attack thinking I lost 1TB of data....
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:58am
JDKJ: Which could be explained by both (a) and (b).
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:56am
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: You forgot C) the fact that, for some reason, every time he did something that would suggest he shouldn't be in the military, let alone an officer, higher ups ignored it or let it slide.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:51am
JDKJ: Part of the problem is, I believe, that (a) the Army had a lot of time and money already invested in him and which they were unwilling to simply write-off and (b) an increasing need for the type of skills and services he provided.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:48am
JDKJ: And that even if he was begging not to get cut loose, he was apparently a real good candidate for being cut loose, anyway.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:11am
JDKJ: @chada: And while Kennedy once noted that there's usually more than enough blame for everyone to get a slice, the possibility that the Army was unwilling to cut loose someone who was asking to get cut loose could be a factor.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:07am
ZippyDSMlee: *noms on his feet*..nomnomnomnom*droooll* ...wuuutttttt uuu looking at?
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:05am
JDKJ: I'm no psychologist, but I'm told that crazy people have a tendency to do crazy things.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:03am
chadachada321: Whoops, was out of the convo for awhile. I do wonder what type of ammo he used etc, but the real issue is WHY he did it, not HOW
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:56am
JDKJ: But if it turns out that they actually did, they'll have Hell to pay.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:45am
JDKJ: And I'd tend to rule out the possibilty of FN Herstal supplying restricted ammunition to someone merely because they're ordering it from a military base.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:37am
JDKJ: I know you don't leave your gated community and get around much in dark alleys, so you may be surprised to learn that there's this thing called "the black market" where, if you've got enough money, ain't too much of anything which can't be bought.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:36am
Austin_Lewis: Or, maybe he or someone else at the base ordered the SS190 from FN Herstal.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:32am
Austin_Lewis: the hands of private owners. They run about 300 dollars minimum for a box of 50, and boxes of AP 5.7 are extremely scarce, mainly residing in the hands of Class III stores or individuals who for one reason or another got a demo box of it.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:30am
Austin_Lewis: There are other firearms that fire the 5.7. However, I too would like to know where he got the ammo and what kind was used. Maybe Hasan, planning not to live through this, went out and bought one the boxes of SS190 that are floating around in
Posted 11/07/09 at 08:44am
JDKJ: And it isn't yet clear what type of ammunition Hasan used. It's strange that he purchased a gun but didn't purchase ammunition for it at the same place and time. Especially because the calibre required is peculiar to the actual gun.
Login or register to post shouts