South Park Republican defends video games in WSJ op-ed

There's a stark difference betwen liberals and lieberals (pronounced LEE-bor-als). Lieberals are "liberal" with family values attacked like Joseph Lieberman for which the term is named.

http://foodcourtdruids.com/

Check out this fantastic book for more on idiosyncratical phenomina.

It's interesting how libertarianism has become WAY more vocal lately, especially with the NSA scandal. Most libertarians I know supported Bush despite the obvious (to me, anyway) lack of smaller government.

I vote for Swedenism.

"Attacked" is meant to be "attached".

Damn "pad typing" technique.

that's a fairly disengenuous way of putting it. libertarian-inclined republicans have become a minority within that party, while the faction in ascendence has been the extremely socially conservative wing of the party, who have consistently advocated legislating personal behaivior. on the democratic side, it's not obvious at all who is in charge. many democratic voters are in favor of strong protections of civil liberties, while a minority represented by certain politicians like joe lieberman believe in government acting in loco parentis.

demogogues from both parties do this periodically (as they did with comics in the 1950s, rock n' roll in the 1950s, and rap in the 1980s and early 1990s); it's high time people who believe in the right to make your own decisions in life got past the stupid red-blue paradigm and stood together.

I hate Hillary Clinton. Did anyone else see that episode of the Daily Show when they showed the clip of her whining about "kids these days with their iPods and whatnot?" I've heard of the strategy of trying to beguile the Christian conservatives used by some politicians, but trying to coax America's cranky bitches is a new to me.

While there is nothing we haven't heard before in the editorial, I'm glad to hear this made it to the WSJ.

I'd be cautious about quoting from the research about games, seeing as it's still pretty wishy-washy overall. Giving it too much credability may invite the anti-game people to focus on the studies that link violent games to increased aggression.

"Some observers speculate that playing violent video games may be cathartic, channeling pre-existing violent impulses into virtual reality, where they can do no harm."

I'd be especially wary of bringing this up, because although it is appealing, there is no basis for it whatsoever. There has still been no study to confirm or deny the cartharsis theory of violent games.

Still, I'd really be interested in seeing what kind of response this editorial garners.

...I guess I am the only one who has become sickened by the transformation that has occured between the old South Park and the new one...

Thanks alot Towlie for sparking the beginning of the end.

If Hillary Clinton is so popular, why are so many amongst Democrats hoping that either Barack Obama or Al Gore (or even better, a Gore/Obama ticket) will jump into the race for the Dems' 2008 nomination? Even amongst liberals, Hillary is a *very* polarizing candidate.

"I've heard of the strategy of trying to beguile the Christian conservatives used by some politicians, but trying to coax America's cranky bitches is a new to me."

Then maybe you should be paying more attention to politics. Pandering to older women who don't necessarily understand the youth of today is a huge pasttime amongst politicians, and has been since the 19th Amendment passed.

By the way, don't take that as an attack on women's suffrage; politicians pander to dumbass men who are too lazy to parent just as much.

This editorial goes to show that video games have their support on both sides of the aisle (and for every thread slamming Hillary, I must bring up Rep. Rick Boucher, D-VA, who is probably video gaming's best friend in Congress). The problem video gamers have is that really, both parties' pro-gaming contingent are on the wane in terms of influence (seriously, how many South Park Republicans have any sort of policy influence on a major level? Libertarian-leaning conservatives like the SPRs oddly have less influence than Nancy Pelosi-style liberals).

I suspect that overall the bloggers of Joystiq have a coservative (or at the very least, an anti-Hillary) slant, but it really does a disservice to video gaming as a political issue, given that treatment of video games is not a partisan issue.

There's no association whatsoever between "libertarian" and "republican" other than this particular group who have apparently just stuck those words together. In fact, you can't *really* be a libertarian and also belong to *either* of the major parties, unless you claim to be so because you support the 10% of their platform that's compatible with libertarianism. It's kind of like calling yourself a Reformist Catholic. I mean, there's a word for that: Protestant.

Libertarians are against government interference of any kind. That includes things like forcing brain-dead people to be kept alive on feeding tubes. It includes waging wars. It includes immigration. It certainly includes domestic wiretaps and massive NSA data mining operations. There is probably more on the Republican side that's completely contrary to libertarian beliefs than there is on the Democratic side.

As for Hillary Clinton and her anti-gaming beliefs, that's a move to the right, not the left. Democrats traditionally have no position on morality-based legislation - it is, in fact, one big reason why they lost the South long ago. They're all for free media. Her position on gaming legislation is pandering to the "Reagan Democrats" and the "(Bill) Clinton Republicans" that she feels she needs to win the White House.

I'm a New Yorker, and while I'm no big fan of Hillary (I would prefer someone else), I'm not a big enough sucker to think she really believes what she's saying all the time. Why do you think politicians break promises when they win office? Because they promise all sorts of things they have no intention of carrying through on in order to win votes. That's all this is, and I'm honestly not so short-sighted that I'm going to put another Bush in office just because Hillary's paying lip-service to the rural South. And if she's going to break promises once she's in office, I'd much rather it be this one than something that's actually important (you know, like coming up with a strategy to win a war, or something).

This news post is laughable.

Although promiment figures in the Democratic have taken on an anti-videogame stance, so have numerous Republican state senators, governors and Republican-controlled state legislatures.

The basic jist of the situation is this: Any person that believes the anti-video game craze is not a bi-partisan issue is a complete fool.

Mr. Grant's subtle comments suggesting otherwise are ridiculous and, if anything, are an example of irresponsible and biased opinion-based reporting out of a place on a site like this.

May I suggest writing these kinds of posts for MSNBC or Fox News from on, and sparing the rest of us the bs?

"I vote for Swedenism."

You want nanny government and public campaigns against masculinity?

"Democrats traditionally have no position on morality-based legislation - it is, in fact, one big reason why they lost the South long ago. They're all for free media."

Not true, liberals are against any type of speech that threatens their politically correct ideology. At my college the people calling for censorship in the local paper were always liberal students. It's also always liberal students that boo and try to shout down conservative speakers, not the other way around. Any conservative speaker trying to present his ideas in a professional manner can expect heckling and personal insults if he goes on a college tour. Even the liberal faculty will take part in the heckling, just look at what happened recently at New School. Liberal speakers don't have to deal with this problem.

I would also like to point out however that most liberals aren't actually Democrats, they're closet socialists.

"Then maybe you should be paying more attention to politics. Pandering to older women who don't necessarily understand the youth of today is a huge pasttime amongst politicians, and has been since the 19th Amendment passed."

I used to pay more attention, but my dentist warned me that the stomach acid in my vomit was bad for my teeth.

My dad always told me not to get into a
conversation about race,sexuality,religion, or politics because they get ugly, but I'm not necessarily sure there are as many conservative gamers as liberal ones. And I completely disagree with the statement that being for gaming rights means being a republican. In fact the opposite is true.
Karl Rove your school may have more liberal hecklers, but the more prominent free speech deniers tend to be conservative. I don't want to generalize so I will say not always, but they tend to be people who are for censorship because of Christian values. Think of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. And it's stupid to say that most liberals are closet socialists because wikipedia defines it as "Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise". Liberals tend to be less strict with laws as conservatives (drug laws, immigration, death penalty).
I agree with Jeff in that the reason Hillary Clinton is anti-gaming(and also wants to make flag burning illegal) is because she wants to look more conservative to prepare for the next election. Remember John Kerry going hunting?
I have no problem with Joystiq posting this article as it mentiones an article written in the Wall Street Journal involving gaming. Also, not all my views are to the left and I am a fan of South Park (which isn't always to the right either). But Chris Grant's last comment was completely off base. "With such notable conservative outlets carrying a common message, while popular liberal politicians like Hillary Clinton continue to vilify gaming, has the debate over gaming become a mirror of today's polarized political landscape?", is all but saying that if you are on the left side "of today's polarized political landscape" that you must vilify games as well.

Wow...Several very embarassing posts by Joystiq writers as of late. Apparently, you guys know absolutely nothing of the world beyond a gamepad and a television, because your consistent misrepresentations of anything not made from polygons (this, the Fox 9 thing) is just sad.

Anyway, "South Park Republicans" is a term coined because of the book. In was in vogue for about 20 minutes and has since rightfully gone away. It certainly was not the other way around.

And then you say this: "With such notable conservative outlets carrying a common message..." While the National Journal and Wall Street Journal represent some of the more influential thought developing on the right, the GOP knows where its bread is buttered: James Dobson's Focus on the Family, Tony Perkin's Family Research Council, and your favorite Boogie Man Jack Thompson are all mainstream gay-hating Republicans who also happen to dislike video games. Amazingly, their supporters are the people who enable the WSJ and NJ to continue feeling important.

Unless you're going to hire mature adults to write the articles that venture into the real world, perhaps you should stay in the virtual one.

No, Dmitri, it makes me sick, too. someone needs to knock them and their half-way-informed-"I'm liberal but not toooo liberal" political views off their soapbox.

I despise Hilary and hope she is never elected to anything. I don't do much voting, but after Gov. Rendell in Pennsylvania ass-raped me by taking out college funding, I'll be sure to vote against him the next chance I get. Pretty much I vote against a person more than I vote for the other person.

How's John McCain feel about games, he usually seems to have an opinion that's reasonable.

"I despise Hilary and hope she is never elected to anything."

I hate to break it to you, but she's a New York Senator :P

Throw it all out and start over, I say. All politicians disgust me.

But the so-called "liberals" (who are SO open-minded and "tolerant") make me a bit more ill than the conservatives, I have to say. But since both induce vomiting, it's only a matter of degree, really.

And this is why Democrats have been losing elections for the past 10 years. They've become way too socialist for freedom-loving Americans.

Republicans believe that individuals know what's best for them, not political figures. And raising a child is the responsibility of parents, not senators in DC.

It was Democrats who were pro-slavery. It was Democrats who tried to deny civil rights to blacks. It was Democrats who pushed to censor music in the 1990s. It was Democrats who tried to censor movies in 2001. It was Democrats who tried to censor an anti John Kerry movie before the election of 2004. And it's Democrats who are trying to censor video games.

All you liberal/socialist apologists need to face the fact that by voting Democrat you support censorship.

"Karl Rove your school may have more liberal hecklers, but the more prominent free speech deniers tend to be conservative. I don't want to generalize so I will say not always, but they tend to be people who are for censorship because of Christian values. Think of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson."

It's not just my school. Show me an instance where a liberal speaker was pied by a conservative student.

Here's what happened at New School:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/20/politics/main1638188.shtml
How appropriate to boo an invited guest, and a former vietnam POW at that.

Political correctness, a creation by liberals, is an entire doctrine of speech control. What has Falwell and Robertson ever created as an equivalent? Yes I know Hollywood likes to depict the Falwell crowd as the enemy of free speech but if you take a closer look you'll notice that it is liberals that have really been pushing for control of individual thought.

"And it's stupid to say that most liberals are closet socialists because wikipedia defines it as"

I don't pay much attention to wikipedia political definitions as they tend to be written by people that want to favorably define themselves.

Check out the Socialist Party USA platform for yourself and you'll see that what they want is almost exactly the same agenda of liberals.
http://sp-usa.org/platform/

Please. The Democratic Party has been the party of civil rights for more than a century. The real reason the Democrats have gradually lost the South is that they so strongly supported civil rights legislation in the 1960's. Republicans opposed civil rights throughout the twentieth century and still do - witness the
persecution of homosexuals, the treatment of Terri Schiavo, efforts to repeal Roe v. Wade, etc. Also, keep your eye on this Supreme court, they're starting to produce 5-4 judgments limiting the rights of individuals (Whistle Blowers a few days ago). Every now and then you'll hear a Republican in front of an African American audience apologize for the so-called "Southern Strategy" - code language for manipulating Whites in the South to vote Republican.

One recent example of broad censorship I can think of is movie theatres refusing to show "Brokeback Mountain" because proprietors thought it glorified "the gay lifestyle." I don't like what Hillary Clinton has been pushing re: flag burning and video games - it represents her effort to appeal to the right, not the left.

Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, etc - these are the far right hate merchants that the Republican party has had a fruitful relationship for decades. Meanwhile the neocons and the religious right have taken over the party. Luckily, America seems to be waking up to the impact of true conservatism on Americans (Katrina mismanagement), on the basic functions of government (deficits, immigration, falling wages, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc), and on the lives and safety of people throughout the world (the utter mess in Iraq).

While you are right on some of that funkonaut... not all democrats are bad... just like not all republicans... but a LOT of censorship lately has been coming from the republican side of things.

Personally I'm independent, i vote for the best person for the job. But to say most of the ills are democrats fault and republicans support personal freedoms 100% is a bit...tenuous at best.

Heck personally, most of the vocal opposition to things like personal freedoms I've seen have been from Republicans.

the last few posts have implied that there is some sort of difference between republicans and democrats...both simply cater to whichever special interest group is seeking influence at any given time without trying to anger their base too much...as far as libertarians go, i don't know, they at least have an amusing animation with politicans, miniskirt beer maids & some guy talking in a deep monotone voice (think Atari champion Curtis Hoard from the post the other day) on their homepage... http://www.lp.org

"One recent example of broad censorship I can think of is movie theatres refusing to show "Brokeback Mountain" because proprietors thought it glorified "the gay lifestyle."

That's not censorship because you still had access to it, but if the government banned the movie then it would be censorship. Movie theatres can choose movies for whatever reason they want because they are privately owned. They can't show every movie so they have to decide which ones will sell best to the local demographic. Trying to charge them with censorship would be silly.

Liberal tolerance on display:
http://www.altavista.com/web/results?q=conservative+speaker+heckled
http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=conservative+pied&kgs=1&kls=0

"Liberal tolerance on display[...]"

So the students were rude. Yeah, we get it. But you know what is just as rude? Generalizing all liberals because of the actions of a few. "Liberal" and "conservative" are wide and general terms, and describe a lot of people. (Almost half of the United States each.) If you're going to criticise people, criticise those people, and stop accusing nearly half of an entire country of being this or that because of the some people like the population of a particular school or a single man who threw a damn pie.

An example of proper criticism: I don't think every conservative is intolerant, I just think karl rove is intolerant. See what I did there, how I didn't just generalize an enormous amount of people because of one insigificant person's posts on a weblog?

"That's not censorship because you still had access to it, but if the government banned the movie then it would be censorship."

That's incorrect - censorship is exactly what that is. A goverment does not have to be the agent for an act of censorship to have taken place. This act wasn't illegal, because movie theaters are indeed private entities. But it is a useful example of the ideology that is driving some people on the far right these days.

I can't stand Hillary Clinton. I like her less as a person than I do as a politician (which is sad, for her).

Do you know Bill and Hillary Clinton met? They were dating the same girl in high school. =)

Politics and the internet, good times. I'll respond to some of the more ignorant and obnoxious comments.

Thanks for the obnoxious troll DG. The term actually predates the book by several years. Read the wiki entry. As a rule, it makes you look stupid when you make assertions that aren't accurate. I'll continue reading regardless.

So because you're distrustful (regardless of rightfully so or not) of socially conservative groups like Dobson's, you're going to downplay the significance of two highly influential conservative outlets publishing thoughtful defenses of video games?

My point: democratic politicians like Hillary have adopted a socially conservative stance regarding video games to appeal to larger majority, while conservatives (admittedly libertarians and not the moral conservatives that dominate our political system today) have spoken up in the two largest right-wing editorial pages in the country. If you don't see this as notable, or as part of the bipolarization (the same kind you seem so keen on continuing) of contemporary politics, I don't know what to tell you.

And lastly, "Unless you're going to hire mature adults to write the articles that venture into the real world, perhaps you should stay in the virtual one."

Don't be a jerk. There's better ways to make your point, and few better ways to lose respect.


Bob422: you just don't get it. See above.

Others that weren't jerks:

32: I think you'd be surprised at most of our political leanings. :)

Jeff: Just because libertarians don't have a large voice in contemporary politics, they are no less Republican. They've been marginalized for a very long time, but the Republican party was founded on (and proclaims to continue) their platform of limited government, etc.

Judd: unless you're a politician, I don't see how the implication is made. I personally am hesitant to identify myself with any political party (they should identify themselves with me), but many influential "left" politicians (see Hillary, Joe) have made huge steps to the right in an effort to ingratiate the Democratic party with morally conservative voters. When two huge "right" publications make a push to the left on the same issue, it seems worth noting, no?

The term, and title of the book is "South Park Conservitives", not "Republicans".

C. Grant - thanks for following up your original post with your thoughts. It adds to the thread.

I understand your points, but I think the person above who said video games have friends (and enemies) on both sides is most accurate.

Joe Lieberman has managed in just 6 years to isolate himself as a DINO (Democrat in Name Only). Hillary is really on her own, which may be advantageous for her but that's another discussion. The point is, I don't think these two represent the grass roots of the Democratic Party's position on video games. So in that respect I reject the contrast you've drawn by pointing out the WSJ and NR articles. Again I point out the far right's presence in the party, which cannot be discounted today. I do remember the efforts by Tipper Gore et al in the 1990's; I found them distressing, but I think a rating system can be very helpful and has been effective so far. Honestly, I'm glad minors are carded when they try to buy a copy of GTAIII (I've seen probably a dozen get turned away in the few times I've been in my local Gamestop). This is a complement to the role parents (should) have, not a replacement for it.

My ultimate point is this: I trust the Democratic party infinitely more than today's Republican party in respecting my personal freedoms and maintaing an appropriate role of government in people's lives.

Eh, quite possibly... but you do realize, the way that most politically-based Joystiq stories are written, they have a Republican slant. Admittedly, part of this is simply the anti-Hillary slant you all quite evidently exhibit, but on the flip side I've never seen you praise anyone that stylizes themselves as a liberal for, well, anything.

Also, can Joystiq name more prominent politicians from the Democratic party (and keep in mind that Joe Lieberman is looking increasingly vulnerable to Ned Lamont, who is challenging Lieberman in the Democratic primary for the Senate seat Joe currently holds) that make noises in favor of censoring video games? Honestly, I think this is mostly just an anti-Hillary issue that too often gets blown up to be a Republican vs. Democrat issue. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the vast majority of politicians couldn't give a rat's ass either way about video games.

As for the point about the Republican party campaigning on a platform of limited government... they might still campaign on that, but any political observer knows that the current administration, with assistance from Congress, has greatly expanded the size and scope of the federal government since Bush's first inauguration. From the No Child Left Behind act to the massive amounts of bureaucracy that developed as a result of the faith-based initiative, the current administration has porked up the government like never before, gleefully aided by a compliant Congress. About the only case where you could say that they do believe in limited government can be found in the stagnation and cutbacks in the EPA. Putting aside whether or not you think the EPA should be restricted, shrinking one agency while letting all the others get larger is not an indication of a dedication to limited government.

Moving over, you know, I don't know if that's the actual Karl Rove... but he certainly shares the real Karl Rove's complete lack of understanding of the Democratic agenda, blatant mudslinging, and general expertise in misinformation.

And if you want to talk about Republican tolerance, look at how often polite dissenters are allowed to address administration officials at public events... oh, right, the administration and its officials get the Secret Service to remove even polite dissenters (those who demonstrate their difference by simply asking a question that points out the administration's flaws). I don't know about you, but I fear being unable to address my leaders with legitimate concerns much more than a pie in the face.

To be fair, the reason there's alot of censorship on the Republican side of things is simply because they're the ones with power. Ultimately, both sides will censor as they deem appropriate... we just have to deal with the Republican version of it at the moment.

Ah, another pathetic attempt by Republicans to get more votes.

Sloan: Agree re: Lieberman and some people might even say I agree with your last statement. I make no claims that video games have no defenders on the "left," simply they now have some defenders on the "right," an area where one would suspect they would find (and have found: Dobson, JT, etc.) far more detractors than saviors. This is promising to gamers everywhere, regardless of your political stripes.

32: Indeed. You might even be able to call us South Park conservatives in both politics and gaming: we're always skeptical. I think politicians for the most part are self-serving sock puppets, for sale to the highest bidder. They've yet to prove otherwise to me. I take it on a per serving basis. By that metric, the outspoken libertarian defense of video games in major conservative outlets is A-OK by me! I'll praise these guys. As soon as I see a "liberal" take a serious stand in defense of gaming, I see no reason to write in their favor. What have we got? Schumer. Clinton. Lieberman. Bayh. Yee. Blagojevich. Democrats in Missourri. Democratic bill in Louisiana (drafted by JT). etc. etc.

Sure there are opponents in the moral majority (I live in Pennsylvania, home of one of the most obnoxious: Rick Santorum! Sorry everyone.) but the willingness of Democrats to make video games their moral whipping boy is not only unfortunate, but dangerous. If it gets play in national elections, and voters respond, does anyone really think the pusillanimous politicians on either side are going to stick to their guns? They'll say what people want to hear. That's why changing what people want to hear is much more important ... things like, I don't know, getting well argued editorials in places like the Wall Street Journal. :)

Christopher, Yee and Blagojevich are *only* prominent outside of their own states amongst video gamers that actually keep track of politics. Citing those two weakens your argument, not strengthens it.

Moreover, if the politicians from Louisiana and Missouri were so prominent, why aren't you naming names (like the bill sponsors) - especially without Google research? The simple fact is, only three prominent Democrats take a stand against video games. One of which is widely considered a Democrat in name only (the anti-Lieberman contingent in the Democratic party grows daily, with or without his video game stances) and one of which is completely ignored by all sides about the issue (seriously, does anyone outside of Indiana give a flying rat's ass about Bayh?).

Also, reminding people about Jack Thompson, a registered Republican, proves my point effectively - the Republicans are just as guilty of this as the Democrats. Along similar lines, since you mention him - Sen. Santorum takes shots at video games in his most recent book, and has co-sponsored legislation with Sen. Clinton investigating violent video games. Mmm... tastes like bipartisan hatred of video games.

Really, you're using this as a straw man to conflate all left-leaning people with those that would censor video games. Anyone willing to take a serious look at the issue can see that it's much less clear cut than it's presented here.

I think DG really hones in on part of the problem - the Republicans let Dobson and his ilk take all the fire on the conservative side. Sure, all the conservatives will follow his lead when it comes to video games. But so long as Dobson et al., who aren't elected, take all the heat, their vote totals don't get affected. The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats on this issue is that the pro-censorship Republicans hide behind Dobson and his kind to take all the heat for how they vote. Meanwhile, the pro-censorship Democrats let one of the party's "brightest stars" take the heat. All it proves is the conventional wisdom - as of right now, the Republicans are much better at gaming the system than Democrats.

If you want to really get a clear indication of what the Democratic party at large thinks of video gaming, why not look at the quintessential Democrat... Ted Kennedy? After some searching, I couldn't find Teddy complaining about the "Drive Like A Kennedy" video game, which specifically takes shots at him. The only game I could find a record of him slamming was the JFK assassination simulator, and personally, I'd be pretty upset over someone making a game about killing my sibling, too.

So if the uber-liberal in the U.S. isn't taking shots at video games, I have to think that the Democratic party as a whole isn't as unfriendly to video gaming as some here would like to portray.

Yee and Blogovich are prominent because they successfuly passed legislation that was overturned in federal courts for being unconsitutuional. If our metric for measuring the importance of political figures is whether or not my Mom has heard of them, then pretty much every US senator in history is unimportant.

The reason I reminded people about JT (and Santorum) was specifically for that. At any point, anywhere, do I claim that Republicans are *not* culpable of the same offenses? If I didn't say so in the post, it's because there's a certain expectation on the part of the writer that the readers will be able to fill in any pertinent background above and beyond the specific topic at hand.

I specifically called the ideology "libertarian" which itself speaks volumes. For context, I linked to my post on the NRO column, where I wrote,

"While ambitious, liberal politicians like Hillary Clinton take the morally conservative route of vilifying video games, conservative politicians have usually been right there behind them. But what about the libertarian viewpoint that Mr. Thierer (and most gamers) advocate: keeping the politicians out of it and letting parents do the footwork? With gaming looking to be a focal point of the upcoming US elections, could conservative politicians take up the (perhaps unpalatable) cause of defending video games?"

Can't make it any clearer than that really.

"Really, you're using this as a straw man to conflate all left-leaning people with those that would censor video games. Anyone willing to take a serious look at the issue can see that it's much less clear cut than it's presented here."

This is the part that's *really* confusing me! I have no idea how condemnation of an admittedly few (albeit powerful) senators on the left is a sign of blanket condemnation of anyone who holds left-leaning political beliefs. That's faulty logic. Indeed, I'd be implicated myself as it were.

And I'm certainly not saying that the current moral majority isn't far worse than the Democrats when it comes to imposition of their morals on others (by a mile) but the point stands that there are conservatives who argue otherwise and, as *some* Democratic (even if by name only because, after all, what is it but a name?) senators try to make this a national issue, I wholly expect an equal and opposite reaction from the libertarian branch of the Republican party (they all don this cap every once in awhile, when it serves them). Will they buck moral messiahs like Dobson to offer a counter to Hillary and Co.?

This my be a little off topic but has anyone read Star Ship Troopers Its not anything like that crap movie they made of it. But I believe that the only ones in this country who deserve citizenship are the ones who served in the military in some form. citizenship should be earned by every one not given.
I am neither Republican or Democrat but if I had to choose it would be Republican. The Republicans are all about not controlling industry and the free enterprise and stuff .
Democrats have always wanted to control the companies and make more regulations to protect the poor and in the process eliminate the competitiveness that makes this country great. In the end the democrats wants some sort of mixed communist sociality

#22 Sloan, I could no agree with you more.

And I can no longer stand Hilary Clinton, supporting censorship with video games and flag burning is just awful. She is what gives liberals an awful name, and what made me become a plain old democrat. I do NOT support Hilary Clinton, nor do I support censorship. Its all just a way for these people to gain more power. I am a democrat and thats how I think.

P.S. Down with the FCC!

Well, thanks to the bloated budgets of the Bush II era, I think that very few libertarians can delude themselves that the Republican party is the major party most in-line with their beliefs. The only thing that this President has done right in the minds of any libertarians that I know is the tax cuts---but they understand how insane it is to cut taxes while increasing government spending.

Unfortunately, however, the Democratic Party isn't a good option either. While the Republican party hasn't lived up to its' "smaller government" plank, Democrats have never pretended as if they weren't going to raise taxes and add to government spending. Of course, the last person to balance the budget was a Democrat, so who knows anymore?

I think, at bare minimum, what most libertarians can hope for is changing the Congress enough so that one party isn't in charge of it all. At least then gridlock can be hoped for--and though it's not a perfect solution it keeps the beast of spending at bay at least somewhat.

"Anyway, "South Park Republicans" is a term coined because of the book. In was in vogue for about 20 minutes and has since rightfully gone away. It certainly was not the other way around."

Yeah, you might want to check your attitude before you lecture others, genius. The term was around for two years before Brian stole it for a book that has nothing to do with actual SPR philosophy.

Taking my lumps, right -- South Park Republicans came before the book. Does that make it any less stupid? No, probably not.

Anyway, my original point is the conservatives are more likely to censor the stuff you life than liberals. They get their panties in a wad about sex, violence, and language much more than liberals (see: Janet Jackson 2004 among a myriad of other examples).

So, yes, Hillary Clinton said one stupid thing. And also, any power the comes from the WSJ or NRO is totally based on the GOP's 40-year-old policy of race- and gay-baiting. The Iraq misadventure would not have been possible had it not been for the South and the Midwest's intense dislike of homosexuals, stirred up by the likes of Karl Rove, Jesse Helms, George Bush and, yes, John McCain.

Am I surprised your views of politics are so ill-informed? Course not. You read the WSJ and National Review. Am I surprised that you've fallen for the Hillary Clinton in 08 boogie man? Again, course not. You read opinion pieces with basis in fact and recycle the same crap here. It's a shame, really.

DG(#41)... The Iraq misadventure would not have been possible had it not been for the South and the Midwest's intense dislike of homosexuals, stirred up by the likes of Karl Rove, Jesse Helms, George Bush and, yes, John McCain.

Um, for right or wrong, I thought Iraq was either about WMDs (The Right) or Oil (The Left). I don't remember anyone saying "If you hate homosexuals, let's invade Iraq!"

Furthermore, Joe Biden has been the biggest anti-games crusader in the Senate for over 10 years, and he's a Dem too. The problem is the Dems are trying to make games an issue, and are therefore appearing pro-active. It worked with the "Explicit Lyrics" labels on music, they're trying to make it work here. But it's not going to work, because apparently unlike music, no one cares about censoring games.

And conservatives may be more likely to get upset and crazy over something someone said, but when it comes to trying to get things banned legally or at least censored, the Dems have, admittedly shockingly, led the charge.

To clear up:

Bush wouldn't have been able to become president if his party hadn't stoked the fires of the bigot-vote. The GOP coalition is made up of rich white guys with money, neocons that want to assert America's military power all over the world (even though they never served themselves), and a very large swath of bigots that used to hate blacks, then women, then blacks again, now gays and Mexican immigrants, and they tend to justify their bigotry by quoting random Bible quotes. That's your Republican coalition.

And for an example of Dems censoring anything, I can't think of anything. I can, however, think of the GOP-led crackdown on supposed indecenet materials after Janet Jackson's tit. $500,000 fines on local radio stations and network affiliates for letting the "F" word go over the air is much more worrisome for me (and should be for you) than Hillary Clinton saying some stupid stuff once in a while. The Republican-run FCC has power, Hillary does not.

DG: It's impossible to argue with you. It's like arguing with any zealot, everything exists to reinforce your world view.

I don't read the NRO or WSJ daily (I read about 300-400 gaming sites instead) but we get this stuff tipped a lot. This time from DMark (see above). If I read something that I agree with, I consider the source, plug it into what I know about the world, and try to come up with a thought process that makes sense to me. It seems the way you deal with it is, you read it, see where it comes from, then plug it into any number of neat, pre-built, categories of thought that can easily be referenced and regurgitated. I've heard all your arguments before.

And if FCC fines are censorship (which they aren't, at least not directly) then what are the democratic sponsored bills that passed in several states? What about warning labels on CDs? These were all designed to prevent and preclude the financial viability of going against a limited and puritanical world view ... just like the FCC's fines. It's the pot calling the kettle black here.

Perhaps if you don't read any political sites you should take the well reasoned (by others, not myself) criticism of the nature of your post and accept that. It's always easiest to disagree instead of change your mind, but really -- Hillary Clinton as boogeyman of the Democratic party is just an annoying lazy straw man. As I've said over and over, Hillary Clinton does not represent the Democratic party. She is considering a run for the presidency and is felshing out her conservative, yes CONSERVATIVE, credentials. In 2006, conservatives are about four billion times more likely to censor video games than liberals. Why that isn't obvious has party to do with an ignorant public and misinformation continually proferred by people like yourself. So there.

Further, PG warnings on CDs have been proven to be very unsuccessful, a huge failure of Tipper Gore's. The PG versions of CDs vastly outsell the edited ones that it's nearly pointless. The FCC, on the other hand, has just been given more power by the Republican Congress to raise the fines it can place on a given station. A year ago, many ABC affiliates were unable to show Saving Private Ryan for fear of crippling fines from the FCC. That is censorship. A silly sticker is not.

Again, I'm willing to concede knowledge of video games and South Park. However, taking information from noted exaggerators WSJ and NRO isn't always a great idea, considering how misleading and often flat-out wrong those publications tend to be.

"That includes things like forcing brain-dead people to be kept alive on feeding tubes."

If Terri Schiavo was brain dead, she would be totally dead, not being able to move at all. Terri Schivo wasn't brain dead.


"WSJ and NRO isn't always a great idea, considering how misleading and often flat-out wrong those publications tend to be. "
Because they don't spew forth the great "liberal logic" such as the New York Times Op/Ed columns, or the LA Times Op/Ed columns. Kkkonservatives are evil, and they support racist and homophobic legislation!!!!

"Bush wouldn't have been able to become president if his party hadn't stoked the fires of the bigot-vote."
Everyone who isn't head over heels for allowing gay marriage is a bigot.

Ahh, the old you think your way because you're a bigot. It's that same LIBERAL type of personal attack and censorship that gave up 'politically correct' speach. The type of attitude that has been placed thru out minority communities that say 'if you get fired, it's because white people hate you for what you are'.

At least when consertives censor, it's because it's against their bible. When liberals censor, it's because there's something wrong with you.

And anyways, lesbians and gays can already legaly marry. There's not a single person stopping them from marrying. It's the fact that they want to redefine what marrige is that gets people in an uproar.

I don't want to weigh in on a partisan political debate here so let me assure you I hate all politicians. No matter what side they're on, they're all about as useful as a dance mat at the World Cyber Games competition. Most of the gamers I know have enough cognitive thought to realize that none of these bozos care at all about us (even when it comes down to our safety) and that video games (which should be last on the list of things to protect us from; if it should beon that list at all) are going to be attacked by both liberals and conservatives until the game companies start hiring lobbyists to shovel money into the black hole that is the american political process. Because that's all these jerks care about: money and control: it's what makes them feel bigger than us.

As for "South Park conservatives", they sound like they're just trying really hard to not call themselves libertarians; they probably think it sounds too much like liberal because you know how bad a word that's become. At least these guys seem to be trying to show similarities between people. The two party system would love to see us at each others throats; that's what got all those states to back the moron who's currently in the White House.

What I would like to weigh in on is the process in which these games are attacked. What if they (any game that offends some overly sensitive idiot) came from a country where the rules were looser. We could just import them and not worry about our stupid government and their cronies like the FCC. Besides, I'd love to see what the next GTA game would be like if the Rockstar guys moved to Amsterdam.

I wholeheartedly share the sentiments of all of you who've been saying f*&% the FCC, the PTC, and every other self important prik who thinks they can dictate what I can be entertained by. That's the true spirit of South Park.

Maybe Cartman is a republican but the rest of those kids seem to have some common sense.

That is off topic and you are the reason people shouldn't have sex with their cousins.

I was concerned about gay marriage too until I found out that I wouldn't be legally obligated to divorce my wife and marry some random dude.

You are obviously still gay which explains your bizzare strain of homophobia. It must be hard to hate yourself that much. Just choosing to be straight must not have been enough.

At least gay people don't usually have children with brain damage. Many don't have children at all which is precisely why I support gay marriage. Just for population controll I think we should have more gays.

You should probably thank some moor about your logistics.
You are joking right? Please tell me you're joking.

Now I see that I really just shouldn't have responded to you in the first place but as not to make this board a soapbox for your dementia, this is my last word and honestly I should've not responded to you in the first place but I'm a little worried about you.

You have got to be inbred if you think that gay marriage is as bad. Inbreeding causes seriously chromosomally challenged babies (some with major birth defects and MAJOR mental disorders)to be born while gay marriage by itself causes no babies. I don't know about you bucket, but I'd rather be alone than be surrounded by people as stupid as yourself.

Based on your earlier post, I think you really have to let go of your self hatred and maybe try being gay again because these excuses you make up for yourself just aren't working. You obviously resent gays for being gay while you were forced (either by a religious group or by some de-programmers your dad hired) to be straight and you think all gays should have to live in the self-loathing miserable denial you've been living in.

Get some professional help because this kind of thing can lead to suicidal tendancies.
I'm not joking.

Well this is my last word. First of all I really think I should clear up your perception of me. I am not gay nor was I born gay. I repeat I was trying to use an example to the common believe of born homosexuality. I am also not inbred and I am totally against it in all its forms. But I was using it in a comparative way toward the topic. And I am not against gays just like am not against people who drink or use drugs. I may not agree with there actions but it does not mean that I hate them for many of my buddies at work do these things. I Am not trying to insult u in any way. I’m not trying to make any enemies.
So please accept my apology for offending u.