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 ...


... 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.


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.


Cooper: Senator McCain?


(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...


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.


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.




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.


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.


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?


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.


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?


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.


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.

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:


“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.

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


“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.

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.


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.


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?


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.


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.


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...


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.


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


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.


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)


"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.'


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.


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.
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :


Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Big PermI just didn't care for the wording. I don't think it should be changed or anything.07/31/2015 - 12:46pm
james_fudgeIf I am misunderstanding your point expand on it in the comments and i'll talk about it in there.07/31/2015 - 12:23pm
james_fudgeIt's clearly part of a broader internal fight against people like Sargon.07/31/2015 - 12:21pm
james_fudgeBig perm: fair point. On the other hand that's its origins and not saying that in some way would be a disservice to our readers07/31/2015 - 12:21pm
Andrew EisenMatt - What is the argument that Sargon supposedly debunked?07/31/2015 - 12:06pm
Big PermThat said, I don't think it's a shit article.07/31/2015 - 11:22am
Big PermNot really a fan of "one individual aligned with Gamer Gate attempted to shame a prominent figure within its own ranks". It should be encouraged that we call out hipocracy, and instead I feel that shines a negative light on such a thing.07/31/2015 - 11:21am
james_fudgeI'm curious what our GG-aligned readers think of our Necromancer story? Was it fair? Unfair?07/31/2015 - 11:11am
E. Zachary KnightMatt, That the whole stink over the articles is a bunch of BS? Because that is the only part that is BS.07/31/2015 - 8:29am
MattsworknameOh btw, info, are you still refering to that "gamers are dead" argument? Cause sargon of akkad just did a 3 video series that proves it's based on bullshit07/31/2015 - 6:46am
MattsworknameInfo: thats what you call clickbaiting to the highest level07/31/2015 - 5:43am
InfophileAnd here's why you never judge an article by its title: "Microsoft Gives All Windows 10 Users the Finger" - (I'm looking at you, people still mad about "Gamers are Dead")07/31/2015 - 5:09am
Matthew Wilson not game related, but this is a good interview.07/30/2015 - 8:52pm
Goth_SkunkFinally, I never misspelled Chipman's name. So, feel free to try your luck again, but pick an opponent you can beat.07/30/2015 - 8:32pm
Goth_Skunk@Technogeek: I paid for the experience of the seat, and upon completion of the movie determined that the extra for the seat wasn't worth it. Additionally, your opinion is not law. You thinking the movie is crap does not make it so.07/30/2015 - 8:31pm
Craig R.1st I heard of Pixels was seeing trailer in theater. Was interested until Sandler appeared, then it became an instant 'Nope'.07/30/2015 - 4:52pm
james_fudgesick burns are not always allowed in the shoutbox.07/30/2015 - 4:28pm
MechaCrashIt's especially funny because I said "you'd have to be a moron to enjoy it," and Goth boasted about enjoying it, as if that does anything to change my opinion of the movie or of him.07/30/2015 - 4:19pm
TechnogeekMatthew: Back when that law was first implemented, I kept trying to come up with a scenario where it would be anything other than an unmitigatedd sisaster. Nothing ever came to mind.07/30/2015 - 4:16pm
Matthew Wilson no duh Sherlock!07/30/2015 - 4:10pm

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician