Supporter Cries Foul Over Ron Paul's Exclusion from Yahoo! Games Candidate Recap

January 31, 2008 -

As GamePolitics has noted, Yahoo! Games issued a summary this week detailing its view of where the top three candidates from both parties stand on video game issues.

Left out of the Republican mix was Ron Paul. Yahoo! instead rated John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, who are, in fairness, the leading vote-getters at this point in the primary cycle.

The exclusion of Internet favorite Paul left a bad taste in the mouth of at least one Libertarian blogger. In a piece for Nolan Chart, "Big Louie" writes:

In a strange move to... Yahoo Feature article writer Ben Silverman doesn't mention the one candidate who believes in freedom, especially for the digital world (Internet, video games, TV, etc).


What could have they have been thinking? Congressman Paul is the ONLY candidate we can depend on to NOT regulate the Internet and guarantee our First Amendment Rights.


Just so you guys know, the USA isn't a democracy. It never was and wasn't even intended to be. Maybe it has a democratic process in which we elect our representatives. But by definition we are a Constitutional Republic.


Or, sorry, I didn't know. I guess that is nore directed atthose supporters who either blindly support or whien about any tiem he wasn't in an article.

The whole system is broken, when a candidate that is still pounding the pavement dose not get fair and equal time. its a god damn insult to the nation and the electoral process.


Perhaps you don't mind if your first amendment rights are taken away, but I'll take that "snowballs chance in hell" of keeping mine.

@ Eric

Actually, that was Huckabee.


If you're Canadian...why does this concern you anyways? I believe you have just admitted that your opinion doesn't matter in this debate.


touch my rights and your dead before you hit the ground. don't think I'll give up so easily.

Who cares. The REST OF THE WORLD would vote for Obama. :o

mogbert Says:

"While soliciting opinions on the different candidates from others in my office, everyone had the same thing to say about Ron Paul; “Who?”"

Why do you suppose that is, mogbert? Why do you think your little flatass office buddies don't know who Ron Paul is? Is it his fault? Is it his supporters' fault? Why do you think people don't know who Ron Paul is?

Do YOU even know anything about Ron Paul? Actually, better question: do you even vote, or just like to have an opinion?

Democrats generally support bigger government which implies reduced amount of civil liberty. Unfortunately, the neo-conservative republicans are pretty much going to also give you a bigger government with less civil liberty. They are just going in slightly different directions.

James A., I hope you are not implying that the Civil War was actually about slavery. Anyone who knows their history will understand that it was about state rights. Slavery was part of the issue but the reason the war started was because the federal government wanted to take rights away from states. I have no idea why Abe Lincoln is celebrated as a hero, he didn't free the slaves. It is a totally preposterous notion and nearly everyone believes it to be true.

-Jes- Actually the rest of the world would vote for Ron Paul. Do a bit of research and you'll find that to be absolutely true.

Fact of the matter is, regardless of how Democrats and Neo-conservative Republicans are similar due to their desire to expand government and reduce civil liberty, Democrats take a LOT more special interest money. They are not going to represent the average citizens, you and I. Democrats are going to serve the people who have given them all that money to win the election. Ron Paul is literally the only candidate that doesn't take special interest money but rather just has a bunch of supporters that organize their own fund raising efforts for him. These million dollar days the Ron Paul supporters are responsible for are from multiple small donations. These are average people giving him what they can, when they can. He'll probably get 2 million today from the people of this country as today is another mini-money bomb day and the 3rd will also be one, because he needs more money to spend for feb 5th.

Ron Paul is unique. He is the only candidate that actually stands out and boy does he stand out. His ideas seem radical and crazy but if you really do some research you'll understand it is much better than the road we are currently traveling. I understand that his platform isn't going to be one everyone will agree with but at least its honest and at least it isn't promoting ideas that have been tried before and don't work at all. You can't just throw money at problems and expect them to go away(Democrats), you can't continue fighting illegal undeclared wars and not expect it to bite you in the ass later(Republicans), you can't solve illegal immigration with amnesty or by building a wall(Democrats/Republicans), and you can't continue to allow the fed print money out of thin air(Democrats/Republicans). When things finally hit bottom, Ron Paul probably won't be around to say "I told you so!". But hopefully his son, Rand Paul, will. The Iraq war will come back to haunt us and we will have a major economic problem(as if we don't already). Just wait and see.

If you can judge a man by his friends, why can't you judge a candidate by his supporters? In my case, a very informed, knowledgeable friend of mine turned me on to Ron Paul. In sifting through the crazies (because any moron with a keyboard or camera can post something, as this site proves), I found some very smart people, who are passionate and willing to share it. Same thing with Obama. Some very smart people backing him. Is it wrong to agree with with a smart person?

Yes, it's wrong to agree with a smart person because they are smart. They have to have some special expertise in the field in quesiton otherwise it's called an appeal to authority. If you support Ron Paul do so because you believe his issue are right and not because you think smart people support him. Nuts also support him. Which is not all that odd since you can find a nut supporting anyone. You can find smart people supporting anyone too. The problem is that Ron Paul has more than his fair share of nuts if you want to use his "judge a man by his friends". Given his racist newsletter that his friends wrote for him, or so he says now, that's not really a wise policy.

Ron Paul has been predicting that the US will hit bottom for years. In the 80's, 90's and now well into the 2000's. He will be doing it til he gets elected and then, assuming he can get his reforms passed, will make it happen. The gold standard will flat out crush the economy, make most people homeless, throw the world into a depression and thus start who knows how many wars. Judge Ron Paul by what he says, the racist, homophobic and xenophobic stuff that bears his name, and the economic policy he puts forth.

What Ron Paul does show is that there is room for a more libertarian (don't tax, don't spend) GOP than the current tax and spend Republicans. And that is a good thing. You get someone who is, well, sane, and you might have a winner.

The federal reserve is going to crush the economy. The free market must be working.

How is just printing money out of thin air some how more acceptable than having some kind of asset to back all of your notes? He is sane, it is insane to think we can continue in this system for very much longer. It is a miracle it has lasted this long. He has always said EVENTUALLY IT WILL END. He isn't saying it will in 10 years or 20 years, but eventually if we continue down this road we will have a great fall.

Ron Paul has made all kinds of loony, inaccurate predictions over the years. Here's one where he predicts that the new dollar bills they started printing in the 90s would be used to spy on people and destroy us all (and he charged people to tell them that):

Let's not forget how closely he works with Gary North, who sold books on how to survive the inevitable diaster of Y2K.

Face it, the guy attracts so many loons because he is one.

Bah. "Disaster," not "Diaster." My kingdom for an edit button.

Every government has failed over time. Kingdoms come and go. Predicting a failure of a government without a timeframe is an easy prediction. Without a timeframe it's an utterly worthless prediction.

What backs gold?

There is nothing more inherent in the value of gold than there is in the value of paper money. It's just the perception that gold has value and nothing about the metal itself. Let's face it, if you are going to hoard any metal for an upcoming war it should be steel. Easy to work, recycle and hard to dent. Steel, at the end of times, is going to be far more valuable than gold.


That's upsetting to think that the IRS would come in with AK-47's and not good, American built M16's. But it wouldn't fit in with the whole commie pinko theme. But it's nice to see the homophobia and anti-semitism in their too.

[...] (via gamepolitics) [...]

@James A.

Let's see Obama said he wouldn't support censorship. He proposed timetables to get us out of the war. And he's black. So there goes all your moronic 'reasons' to not vote democratic (and you act like any republican other than Ron Paul will get us out of the war, preposterous).

Father time -- er, what date has Obama set on his "timetables to get us out of the war"? Maybe like "when things get better"? That's Bush's platform. Only one candidate in either party, Ron Paul, says it straight: NOW is the time. The other candidates seem intent upon focusing their attention on some vague date sometime in the future -- perhaps even 100 years in the future. Iraq might well become another Korea, you know, the place where we have troops stationed for over a half-century to protect Japan. I'll bet McCain would argue that our warranties on our Toyotas would be invalid if the North Koreans invaded and conquered Japan -- wake up sleepy Sheepies.

Er, what date has Obama set on his “timetables to get us out of the war”?

June 2009. Sounds reasonable.

There's no logistical way to get our troops out "now." Do you know the process that goes into moving that many troops halfway around the world? Even if we started today, we'd still have men there a year from now.

Terrible Tom said:

I understand that his platform isn’t going to be one everyone will agree with but at least its honest and at least it isn’t promoting ideas that have been tried before and don’t work at all.

Yes it is. He wants exactly the economy we had a hundred years ago, when factories had no regulations and workers slaved away on hazardous machines six-and-a-half days a week for chump change, which they used to rent ramshackle buildings (no building codes) and eat food that wasn't fit for vermin (no FDA).

Ron Paul says that, in a free market, everyone would treat each other fairly even if no one was there to make sure of it. But one look back at the Industrial Revolution is all it takes to prove him wrong.

I'm sorry, that should read "June 2010," not 2009. My mistake, not his.
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :


Poll: Is it censorship when a private retailer decides not to sell a particular video game?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
WonderkarpI dont see Moral Panic with a racing game though05/28/2015 - 3:40pm
Matthew Wilson@AE when they tend to misrate games its normally because of moral panic surrounding it.05/28/2015 - 3:38pm
E. Zachary KnightReally awesome short film here. Predator: Dark Ages. Very well done. - 3:36pm
Andrew EisenBut hey, misrating less than five out of thousands of game ain't too bad a track record. No one's perfect.05/28/2015 - 3:32pm
Andrew EisenIt's a racing game. Despite what the ESRB says, there's no gore and it's hard to consider it violent. Yeah, there's supposed to be a driver in the vehicle and they do explode when they crash and there is a slight bloodstain when they do but come on.05/28/2015 - 3:30pm
Wonderkarpnever played it....atleast I dont think. May have rented it once from Blockbuster05/28/2015 - 3:27pm
Andrew EisenAnd I STILL say the ESRB misrated Forsaken 64. There is absolutely no reason that should be rated M.05/28/2015 - 3:23pm
Andrew EisenI just hope there a children and small animals in the game. Like dogs and cats. And elderly people on walkers and in wheelchairs.05/28/2015 - 3:20pm
Andrew EisenOh you meant "would have gotten an M rating 15 years ago" not "an M15 rating years ago." Oops!05/28/2015 - 3:19pm
Wonderkarpbut whatever. its a moot point. I'm curious if the game allows mods. I'd make the blood confetti with rainbows :P Turn he really a protagonist?.... into Nathan Explosion cause seriously. Brendan Smalls gonna sue somebody05/28/2015 - 3:17pm
WonderkarpI know M is 17, but M can get sold in Walmart or Target, but they wont carry AO05/28/2015 - 3:14pm
Andrew EisenM is 17 but whatever. I'm wondering why Hatred still hasn't shown up in the ESRB's database.05/28/2015 - 3:13pm
Wonderkarpsomething like that, yeah. If like what Matthew said. "How did it get a AO rating to start with?" in comparison to games like Postal. If Postal gets an M and Hatred gets an AO, what other games could get AO that would have gotten an M 15 years ago?05/28/2015 - 3:11pm
Matthew Wilson@Wonderkarp the slippery slope is a fallacy. 2 Australian is bound by law, the esrb is not.05/28/2015 - 3:10pm
Andrew EisenKarp - I'm not following. Are you concerned that even more games are going to be rated AO or something?05/28/2015 - 3:08pm
WonderkarpI'm more worried that its a slippary slope to more Australian style ratings strictness.05/28/2015 - 3:06pm
Matthew Wilsontranslation the media overreacted to Hatred , and wrote a bunch of click bait article. I agree with the reviewer. how did it get a AO rating to start with?05/28/2015 - 3:00pm
Andrew EisenDestructoid has the first review of Hatred that I've seen. - 2:54pm
Wonderkarptransformers was so disapointing. I liked the first one because of the potential of the series, but then......ugh. shoot me now05/28/2015 - 1:52pm
james_fudgeGod I hate those Transformers movies so much.05/28/2015 - 1:43pm

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician