New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

November 10, 2008 -

Despite those well-publicized Barack Obama ads on Xbox Live, some gamers remain leery of the President-elect's views on video games, according to the New York Times.

The NYT's Brian Stelter writes:

Some players say they are concerned about other interruptions to their games that they consider more serious. Blog posts scoring Mr. Obama’s positions on video games have received hundreds of comments, with some readers worrying that his admonitions during the campaign to “put the video games away” signaled new regulations or restrictions on the industry...

A Web site called GamePolitics, established by a pro-gaming consumer advocacy group, pointed out in February that Mr. Obama had given campaign speeches in which games were used as a metaphor for underachievement.

Mr. Obama’s answers to a questionnaire by the nonprofit group Common Sense Media last year echoed the theme. He indicated that he supported parental controls for both television and video games and called on the video game industry to “give parents better information” and improve the voluntary ratings system. “If the industry fails to act, then my administration would,” he wrote.

GP: Seeing GamePolitics cited in the NYT is sweet, even if they did forget to include a link.

UPDATE: The fiery Obama image at left is part of DLC released for Mercenaries 2 by Pandemic Studios.


Comments

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

 You fail to mention in there that he allowed through both republican sponsored bills as well as democrat sponsored bills during that time, and also in that time he spent more money on liberal causes than Clinton ever did.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Bush's veto record is irrelevant to the record of Obama. It takes some major shoehorning to work Bush in there, too.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Glass houses Republican.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

I do not select who I support based on Party. I hate Bush, but despised Kerry and Gore more. Obama's a parasite, so I selected McCain, an ass, but the only one likely to get elected besides Obama. Again, what reason do you have to shoehorn Bush into discussions about Obama's possible veto record? Besides the obvious left-wing stupidity of the "Bush! So there!" response? 

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

It's not shoehorning if you're comparing what was to what may be. Thinking about the possibilities of what President-elect Obama may or may not veto can't be discussed rationally without the contrast of the veto records of the Presidents before him.

Your rancor on this issue really isn't necessary.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

You give no reason why though. You just say it can't, and leave it at that. Obama has voted 97% with the Democrats. He has yet to seperate himself from them on any major issue. How does any of that have anything to do with Bush? 

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

You are correct on Obama's voting record.  But I'll just have to forgive him that 3% that he fucked up on.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Actually I did give reason with respect to the power of veto. You have to talk about the historic use of veto power by previous Presidents in order to gain the right perspective on the matter. 

This isn't about left wing or right wing it's about what's best for the country. Millions of people, myself included, felt that Obama was better for the country at this point in time than the Republicans. You are right in that we don't know how he'll govern, but then we didn't know how President Bush would govern either. Presidents have been good and bad and only time and history will tell if Obama falls into one category or the other.

I don't get the censor-crat vibe from Obama that I do from some others but as with so many other things, only time will tell if I'm right or wrong.

More to the point it's refreshing to see someone saying what many of us in the gaming community have been saying for years. That government isn't the solution to every problem and government can't help parents raise their children. 

To your lat "point" McCain voted 90% of the time with President Bush. So where were you going with this?

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

You hate Bush but yet voted for someone with a near identical voting record?  Peculiar.  But yes, I voted for Obama.  I would have prefered Kerry or Gore, but those ships have sailed.  But just what reason would anyone have for voting for someone who is the yes-man to the President with an approval rating below that of Nixon?

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

It's not my ideal choice. I would have preferred Barr, but he had no chance of winning. I wasn't swinging to Obama, because he has yet to show that he has any idea how economies, militaries, schools, or foreign relations work.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

And McCain does know how foreign relations work?  Really now?  Would that include continuing this pointless, farce of a war in Iraq now?  I don't think you realise it.  But the GOP has put our foreign relations in the shitter.  As far as economies go, I'm glad Obama is going to stop the Walstreet welfare that serves only to make rich assholes richer.  If some fuck has to sell one of his yachts and lose his bakers dozen of them I shan't not shed a tear.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

 And Obama has stated that he plans for the Iraq war to go on for an undefinable period of time.  You're arguments are nothing but vitriolic hate towards conservatives without any consideration of how much you're statements contradict your own candidate.  The dems were the ones to bailout most of the companies that died in the latest market dive (like fannie may), not the republicans.  It was Pelosi who was the driving force behind the bailout bill, and it was Obama (and not McCain) who agreed to the original version of the bill which had no restrictions on the executive in its spending.  So....how exactly will Obama stop the so called "wall street welfare?"

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Uh, of course I have vitrolic hate towards the Conservatives.  Why wouldn't I?  There are many groups I have a hatred towards.  The KKK, Westboro Baptists, and Conservatives.  Really, go read Conservapedia to really get a good insight into these book burning, racist, corporate coruption enabling, warmongers beliefs.

 

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

"And Obama has stated that he plans for the Iraq war to go on for an undefinable period of time."

Whaaaat? Where the fuck are you pulling that one from? FOX News?

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

 Wrong.  From friends in the military.  I think they keep more track of something like that then any of the news sources out there.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

You're kidding, right?  I mean, Obama has gotten a huge amount of flack for wanting to LEAVE Iraq!  Hell, one of McCain's major stumping points was that Obama would bring the troops home in 'defeat', but McCain would lead them to 'victory'?

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

He doesn't have to lead the way on the issue Chris W, all he has to do is sign a bill into law.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Judging by the sheer volume of promises made by Obama (and the multiple volumes of expectations of the media and electorate) he might have time to turn his mind to videogames sometime in late 2015

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

"Palin would of regulated games. "

  Wow, you almost made a sentence there.  It almost makes me wish Obama would regulate grammar.  Maybe he will. 
 
 Regardless, both parties have their own pet issues which they love to regulate.  What was the last increase of freedom either party promised?
 

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Palin would of regulated games.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

You base that on what? Nothing? And the VICE PRESIDENT would regulate games? 

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Palin has tried to have certain books banned in her own state.

Tryign ot have games banned woudln't be much of a stretch for her.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Go look at the number of books she supposedly tried to ban during her time in Wasilla. The number is zero. And asking a person how they would respond if somebody asked them to ban something does not constitute an attempt at a ban.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Half-truth.  She asked a librarian in the city how she could go about banning books.  When the librarian didn't show her support for Palin, Palin tried to have her fired.  So no, she didn't ban any books.  But it is quite clear that the desire was there.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Go read the story again. She never asked how she would go about banning books. She asked how the librarian would respond if somebody (or her) asked her to remove a book found to be offensive. Again, if she wanted to, she might have just filed a request form. She didn't, and the librarian wasn't fired over the issue. You, the librarian, and the propaganda that is the mainstream news networks added that she wanted to. Imbeciles in far-left blogs trupeted the story, because it fits into their preconcieved and ignorant notions of what Republicans are like.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

"Go read the story again."

Okay.

"Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor."

Nope.  Still hasn't changed since I read it.  But it doesn't matter at this point McCain and his Nanny-State running mate lost.  Guess people didn't want a 3rd term of Bush.

 

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

 I vaguely recall reading that around the time the librarian was fired, Palin also fired like about a half dozen other people on what seemed to be "not giving her their full support" with what seemed to be no regard to how good or bad they did their job... throw that in with the idea that she gave government jobs to old high school classmates who did not seem to have even the minimal qualifications for such jobs and the picture i paint of Palin is someone who does not want to be questioned and prefers to surround herself with "yes men" so she gets as little challenge as possible when she wants to do something... she puts loyalty before actual ability and qualifications

So perhaps the book banning question WAS purely hypothetical and Palin didn't actually have plans to ban books... the reason she initially fired the librarian was not so much because of a book banning issue, but because she would not roll over for Palin... i think the only reason she did not stay fired was because their was because a lot of people spoke up in her behalf; though it has been a long time since i looked into such things

its one the reasons i didn't trust that Personal Board to investigate her... sure 2 of the 3 came from the previous administration, but i'm fairly convinced that the only reason they weren't replaced is because Palin felt they were loyal to her... i think i even recall hearing that one of those 2 contributed money to her or mccain after she became the vp (though that is something i am very uncertain about; could just be a rumor for all i remember)... though maybe its just a coincidence that the investigator they hired to investigate Palin came from a firm that worked for Palin on the big hockey arena job back when she was mayor...

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

"McCain and his Nanny-state running mate lost"

Hilarious, given Obama's agenda.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

The question is whether Obama is so far left-wing that he treads into "Nanny State" territory.  Hillary surely was, and I think that was a factor in her defeat (thank you Mr Obama). 

He did reach out to gamers through his advertising, and he does owe the younger generation for getting him elected.  Hopefully he is young enough and values younger voters to stay away from anti-free speech legislation.

Also, if a Christian zealot like George W didn't try to regulate games, I doubt the next president would as well...those issues are for senators and congressmen. 

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Yes, yes he is that far left-wing. Where have you been? 

And Bush is not a Christian zealot. If he was, he would be against the death penalty.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Wow, that would be a first.  A Zealot against the death penalty.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Ignorant of Christians I see. I'm shocked. Truly.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

I thought we were talking about the Zealots now.  You know the ones who burned people alive for looking at people funny.  See: The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, Fred Phelps.

Now on the other end of the spectrum you have your tolerant and peaceful christians.  But they unfortunately are not as loud as the Zealots and therefore are overlooked.

So, yeah.  Inquisitor Bush seems to match up pretty well with a death loving Zealot to me.  But hey, I don't expect you to be able to tell the difference between the two groups.  Your political party was taken over by the zealots a long time ago. 

But hey, go watch Bill O'Rilley spew some lies and vitrol.  It will make you feel better.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

I don't watch the networks. I don't want to wind up misinformed like yourself.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

This is funny. Irony.

And...

"You spout stereotypes and bigotry" and yet, you just did that yourself. Your argument is a failure. A fallacy.

Edit: Also, though, if you want to be technical, I'd say "nanny state" is more right-wing than left-wing.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Really? Based on what? Opposition to progressive tax schemes? Belief that States should decide social issues? Belief in closed borders? Belief that the Constitution should be the defining law of the land, instead of what some eaurocrat deems fair? Belief that the government should have as little involvement in economic affairs as possible?

Whereas, on the left-wing, Democrat side, we have price controls, the Fairness Doctrine, tax credits taken from the rich and given to the poor, bailouts, hate speech laws, and economic mircromanagement. Some Republicans have taken these stances, and they should know they have my undying hatred, but these are mainly the Democrats, not Republicans. And let's not forget that the liberals are also responsible for racial quotas and union handouts.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

*yawn* Still a failed argument. The Republicans have no progressive taxes, as McCain boasted cutting taxes to all classes, which is  a terrible idea; after all, we're in a multi-billion dollar debt, that money has to be collected from someone. Oh right. He wanted to tax health insurance, in the hope people would buy their own health insurance instead of getting it from an employer.

States SHOULDN'T decide on social issues. Social issues are issues of the people, and should be applied to everyone of the nation. I WOULD use the example of, let's say I was gay and I get married, then I'm not married no more anywhere else out side of Massachusetts, but who knows. Maybe the gays are too liberal for you. The point being why should there be inequality within the States themselves.

Closed borders? Well...maybe if we actually had a decent way of getting into the nation. You could be waiting 10, 15, more years just to be accepted as a legal immigrant.

Eurocrat, that's funny. Except it's full of shit. Was it not said that all men are created equal? Does it not say we have the freedom of religion? So they want to ban gays from the same rights as straights, to push Christian "traditional values" into our lives? Real Constitutional. Sure, you might make the comeback that "But the Democrats! CENSORSHIP!" Well hold your ass there. Here's a thought for you. Who's more likely to push banning teaching evolution in schools? Republicans, because it's not "Christian" and is that not educational censoreship? And don't give me any bullshit about teaching it's "just a theory" cause guess what? Techically, the gravity is just a theory. Physics are just theories. I guess we should teach ALL of science is one big theory.

And one other things, I wonder who'd be more against us witches. Hmmm, let me think...Oh, Republicans, cause apparently we're the devil-worshipping horrors that are to burn for eternity in the fires of Hell.

In a way, you're right on the last one. As little? Try none. Do you know what happened? Well, apparently, since you don't watch the media, you don't. We're now in a massive economic crisis because of deregulation. Oh yeah, more deregulation all around!

Now, let's look...

Price control, hm...with that, we could prevent the cost of gas from going back up past $4.00 a gallon.

The Fairness Doctrine: www.broadcastingcable.com/CA6573406.html

Tax credits...well, that one doesn't make much sense. Do you even know what a tax credit is? "Tax benefits, granted for engaging in particular activities, that are subtracted on a dollar for dollar basis, from taxes owed." So they want the rich to get tax credits, such as donating to a charity, and give that to the poor? You, sir, apparently have no idea what you are saying. That argument right there is just a big load of bullshit.

Bailout, okay, I will say I do not support it.

Hate speech laws, which ones are you talking about?

And finally, economic micromanagement, I don't know enough to take a stand on this.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

"Price control, hm...with that, we could prevent the cost of gas from going back up past $4.00 a gallon."

And then we'd have a gas shortage, wouldn't that be just perfect.

"We're now in a massive economic crisis because of deregulation."

You got a source on that?

----------------------------------------------------

"What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" - Tasmanian devil

---------------------------------------------------- Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

First, our prices are not set by OPEC. Prices are set from others, such as the oil companies. So then, I ask, if we were to have a shortage why are prices now DOWN by almost half? The argument makes no sense. Oh, we're about to have a shortage, so let's lower prices.

It is then obvious, that there were no real reason for the gas prices to be so high in the first place, if they can drop down so low now.

As for deregulation, that is what Greenspan fought for, deregulation. After the Great Depression, regulations were set up, but then later on, they (like the banks and such) started to complain about it, so Greenspan fought to remove those regulations. Then, you have people like those loan companies going wild with high-risk loans, and well, here we are.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Economics 101 says that if you set a price ceiling below market value you will get a shortage. Gas is dropping on it's own right now but if you were to have a price ceiling at say $1.50 you'd get a shortage because the gas is worth more than that. If you set it at above market value then it does nothing.

----------------------------------------------------

"What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" - Tasmanian devil

---------------------------------------------------- Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Once again based on them thinking that everyone should be held to their Cult of Family Values.  I'm not sure if you have paid enough attention to those on your end of the political spectrum.  But if it were up to them all media would be on the insipid level of PAX tv.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

If that's what the people want, then so long as none of the Constitutional rights is broken, then I don't care. I DO care when state morality leglislation is shot down in court because some Liberal judge pulled a "right" out of his ass, and I do care when morality legislation gets put on the Federal level (and yes, the Dems do it too). I know about my end of the spectrum, thank you, but we are not all the same. Like, I admit, those on the other end of the spectrum are not all the same.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

"If that's what the people want, then so long as none of the Constitutional rights is broken, then I don't care."

Hence my issue with you Republican.  Why should I be forced to adopt your morality?

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

" I DO care when state morality leglislation is shot down in court because some Liberal judge pulled a "right" out of his ass, and I do care when morality legislation gets put on the Federal level (and yes, the Dems do it too)."

Wait so you get peeved when state laws can't legislate morality but you also get peeved when the federal government legislates morality?

I guess that's reasonable but tell me what rights should be left up to the states and what rights should be under the 9th amendment?

Oh and

"If that's what the people want, then so long as none of the Constitutional rights is broken, then I don't care"

Are you implying that you support the FCC regulating content more than they do now? Under the free market if most people wanted to see family friendly TV then most stations would show family friendly TV or the the ones that did show family friendly TV would get really high ratings. There would be no need for the FCC to say 'someone must put out family friendly TV' if their only goal was to ensure family friendly TV existed.

Although let's take a hypothetical situation. The FCC is abolished tomorrow (and there was much rejoicing), netowrks can produce and put on almost whatever content they want onto TV when they want to. If only a small amount of people wanted to see nasty stuff on TV the networks would realise this and would voluntarily stop putting it on because it wouldn't make good business sense. If you want an indication of what people want the free market is great at that.

Although you'd probably be able figure all that out by yourself.

----------------------------------------------------

"What for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" - Tasmanian devil

---------------------------------------------------- Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

You don't watch them then?  So I take it your misinformed state is due to an inborn ineptitude?  A savant of failure as it were.  Really though.  You are GPs Limbaugh.  And you make me laugh just as much as that fat fuck does, so that is something at least.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

My misinformed state? You spout stereotypes and bigotry, just like O'Reiley or Olberman. I search the web. Maybe I'll stumble onto a network site, maybe not, but I get my news.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Yes your misinformed state.  Every post you make is just right wing douchbaggery propoganda.  But again, keep it up.  I need my laughs since Jack got banned.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

And every post you make is left-wing douchebaggery.

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

I try my hardest to do so at least.  Someone has to stand up against you Nanny State, cult of family values, Republican, censormongers now don't they?

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: New York Times: Some Gamers Leery of Obama

Last I checked, the Dems were guilty of being Nanny State, cult of family values, censormongers as well.  They want to take away your guns because they can protect you better.  They also support the banning or censoring of games when it suits them (see Hillary and Liberman).  They support the fairness doctrine, which seeks to curb conservative speech on talk radio and other areas.  In fact, if you support the Democratic party, then you're being fairly hypocritical saying such things to D.S.

And before you try and jump down my throat for being a slave to the republican party, or something around those lines, I'm practically a full on Libertarian, so fuck off.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteOK, so my brief research looking at GameFAQs forums (protip, don't do that if you wish to keep your sanity intact.), the 3DS doesn't have the power to run anything more powerful than the NES/GBC/GG AND run the 3DS system in the background.07/28/2014 - 11:01am
ZenMatthew, the 3DS already has GBA games in the form of the ambassador tittles. And I an just as curious about them not releasing them on there like they did the NES ones. I do like them on the Wii U as well, but seems weird. And where are the N64 games?07/28/2014 - 10:40am
james_fudgeNo. They already cut the price. Unless they release a new version that has a higher price point.07/28/2014 - 10:19am
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, It most likely is. The question is whether Nintendo wants to do it.07/28/2014 - 10:12am
Matthew WilsonI am sure the 3ds im more then powerful enough to emulate a GBA game.07/28/2014 - 9:54am
Sleaker@IanC - while the processor is effectively the same or very similar, the issue is how they setup the peripheral hardware. It would probably require creating some kind of emulation for the 3DS to handle interfacing with the audio and input methods for GBA07/28/2014 - 9:30am
Sleaker@EZK - hmmm, that makes sense. I could have sworn I had played GB/GBC games on it too though (emud of course)07/28/2014 - 9:23am
E. Zachary KnightSleaker, the DS has a built in GBA chipset in the system. That is why it played GBA games. The GBA had a seperate chipset for GB and GBColor games. The DS did not have that GB/GBC chipset and that is why the DS could not play GB and GBC games.07/28/2014 - 7:25am
IanCI dont think Nintendo ever gave reason why GBA games a reason why GBA games aren't on the 3DS eshop. The 3DS uses chips that are backwards compatable with the GBA ob GBA processor, after all.07/28/2014 - 6:46am
Sleakerhmmm that's odd I could play GBA games natively in my original DS.07/28/2014 - 1:39am
Matthew Wilsonbasically "we do not want to put these games on a system more then 10 people own" just joking07/27/2014 - 8:13pm
MaskedPixelanteSomething, something, the 3DS can't properly emulate GBA games and it was a massive struggle to get the ambassador games running properly.07/27/2014 - 8:06pm
Andrew EisenIdeally, you'd be able to play such games on either platform but until that time, I think Nintendo's using the exclusivity in an attempt to further drive Wii U sales.07/27/2014 - 7:21pm
Matthew WilsonI am kind of surprised games like battle network are not out on the 3ds.07/27/2014 - 7:01pm
Andrew EisenWell, Mega Man 1 - 4, X and X2 are already on there and the first Battle Network is due out July 31st.07/27/2014 - 6:16pm
MaskedPixelanteDid Capcom ever give us a timeline for when they planned on putting the Megaman stuff on Wii U?07/27/2014 - 2:23pm
MaskedPixelanteIf by "distance themselves from Google Plus" you mean "forcing Google Plus integration in everything", then yes, they are distancing themselves from Google Plus.07/26/2014 - 12:20pm
MechaTama31I wish they would distance G+ from the Play Store, so I could leave reviews and comments again.07/26/2014 - 11:03am
Matthew Wilson@pm I doubt it. Google seems to be distancing themselves from G+07/25/2014 - 9:31pm
Papa MidnightGoogle+ Integration is coming to Twitch!07/25/2014 - 8:41pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician