| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (73)

Posted: Dec 13th 2007 3:00PM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hope you realize that 90% of joystiq commenters are 20 years old or older.
Reply

Posted: Dec 13th 2007 3:15PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm not making fun, I'm critising.
Proof reading is common courtesy: I'd rather not hear your thoughts at all than hear an incoherent rant.

As far as I could decipher you never once explained what rights were being taken away?

Now if they were proposing banning the sale of violent video-games full stop, then you'd have a point, but I don't see how restricting sales to minors is a problem of removing rights.

Like a lot of life's pleasures, society has determined that you should be a certain age before you are mentally/physically developed enough to enjoy them. Now that games are more mainstream than ever they were bound to fall in this category eventually.



Reply

Posted: Dec 13th 2007 3:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That Bill Richardson guy is possibly the first politician I've heard to have an actual solution. Now if only the others would understand legislation wouldn't do anything except waste money and criminalize the regular employee.

Posted: Dec 13th 2007 3:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Regarding "how come they don't know what they're talking about?"

This comes up a lot in politics. But let's be real. Do you really expect someone to be an expert on the environment, economy, movies, gaming, gun ownership, pollution, international law, agriculture, war, the Internet, race relations, and speech writing?

That's what a cabinet is for. They're just trying to give the best answers they can. Except Romney, who just says whatever he thinks will get votes.

Posted: Dec 13th 2007 3:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
That's true in a snap question situation, but it's rare that a candidate lets themself get into a situation where they don't have a prepared answer, even in "debates".

This was a questionnaire, which gives the candidate time to have his advisors formulate answers at leisure.
If they haven't done their homework then it is a poor effort.
Reply

Posted: Dec 13th 2007 3:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This country has a few bigger problems than video game ratings...

Posted: Dec 13th 2007 3:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
When we lose the 1st Amendment, we lose the ability to fight any other problems in our government.
Reply

Posted: Dec 13th 2007 4:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"This country has a few bigger problems than video game ratings..."

True dat. But what else would make sense to talk about on a games blog?
Reply

Posted: Dec 13th 2007 4:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Devin, I don't think anyone is suggesting we discuss this to the exclusion of all other issues. I am certainly interested to hear what the candidates have to say about it.
Reply

Posted: Dec 13th 2007 4:43PM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Obscenity isn't considered protected speech under the 1st Amendment, however under Roth v US obscenity has to be wholly without redeeming social, scientific, and artistic value, at least one of which most video games have

AP Government teaches me things
Reply

Posted: Dec 13th 2007 4:36PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
John Edwards fails to realize that the FTC found that 70% of kids can purchase 'R' rated or unrated movies. Romney's just a dick.

Posted: Dec 13th 2007 4:44PM busydoinnothin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No Ron Paul, no care. If you want the US government to stop trying to control your life, Vote Ron Paul in 2008.

Posted: Dec 13th 2007 5:06PM AirIntake said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"I would enforce current obscenity laws to protect children from "a societal cesspool of filth, pornography, violence, sex, and perversion.""
Until the last line about video games, I thought he was talking about Congress.

Posted: Dec 13th 2007 6:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why can't a candidate that understads that the government's job is pretty much only to run the army and legislate interstate trade get elected?

Why is the question being asked more along the lines of "How are you going to stop the government from interfering in people's lives?"

Why are all the questions always along the "how are you going to step in to do something that people whould be doing without your looking over their shoulder?"

I think it's really fucked up that the people asking these questions think there is no problem in existence that the government shouldn't provide the solution to.

Posted: Dec 13th 2007 8:49PM busydoinnothin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I hope you've read up on Ron Paul's platform, because he stands for exactly that: following the Constitution, as it was written, meaning less government interference. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Reply

Posted: Dec 13th 2007 10:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Of course I have, and in a perfect world, Ron Paul would get elected.

But his chances of getting the Republican nomination is less than zero, and the consensus of the American populace is that unless you vote for one of the 2 worthless parties you are throwing away your vote.

So since i'd rather have another worthless president (like bush) than a socailist one (anyone named clinton), I will be voting republican.
Reply

Posted: Dec 13th 2007 8:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ron Paul would let the market handle it and make sure that the government doesn't come in and start to play nanny. It's called personal responsibility parents! Use some!

Posted: Dec 13th 2007 10:29PM AnderFREAK said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm just amazed that parents can be stupid enough to actually want the government to regulate this crap for us. That's not an ideal that the US was founded on. The parents are, in essence, saying the government knows what's best for their children. the US was founded on the principle that the government was meant to aid us in what we want to do, not control everything directly. If that was the plan our founding fathers would have stayed under the rule of the british.

This is just another example of how the baby boomer generation RUINED this country. I can't wait until their ranks start dying off so this country can finally start making progress for the first time in 50 years.

Posted: Dec 13th 2007 10:51PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The problem is, they let the government run schoold indoctorinate these idiots early. That's why we have a generation willing to believe on faith that the world is going to end, that government has their best interests at heart, and that we should take from the producers in society and give to those who do not.

Google "communist goals of 1963" it's scary how many parallels are drawn.
Reply

Posted: Dec 14th 2007 11:35AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
At least Edwards seemed to be somewhat informed on the issue. I mean, if you asked all of the first and second tier candidates what the ESRB is, I imagine you'd get a sea of blank faces for the most part. I'd have to look those stats he quoted up, but they don't sound improbable to me.

You're always going to get a knee-jerk reaction from the Republican candidate, especially in the primary, because their appeal to the younger voting demographic has been traditionally low, so they don't need to straddle the issue to appease their base like the Democrats do. Unfortunately, that means they feel free to give a "Jesus says get off my lawn, you whippersnappers!" answer instead.

Posted: Dec 14th 2007 1:52PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I like Ron Paul's stance on the issue even tho the kind people at Common Sense Media didn't have the common sense to ask the congressman. Ron Paul's answer would be simple, don't legislate. We don't need more laws.

Posted: Dec 16th 2007 11:11AM Batzarro The worlds WOrst Detect said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Comparisons with alcohol legal age is different. There is clear evidence of the effects of the effects alcoholism has on youth. Unlike games. There's no real evidence to support.

Posted: Dec 16th 2007 11:21AM Batzarro The worlds WOrst Detect said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Whatever (Shouldn't have capital)Kids....Sorry I don't feel like proof reading.
Ok (Shouldn't have capital, redundancy)Kids...I have to go back to work now. Enough of this bull. If you feel the need to make fun of people take it to (a)kids(hyphen missing) site. Not (Shouldn't have capital)Important topics like losing your rights(incoherent with that last part). But what do you care. You get every thing handed to you by mommmy(three m's) and daddy"
>:'D

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW