High Def Forum
Thank you for visiting. This is our website archive. Please visit our main website by clicking the logo above.

John McCain on Gaming

Type A
06-14-2008, 05:00 PM
The user comments after this article were more entertaining than the article itself:lol:


Forget his positions on the war and taxes; we want to know where presidential candidate John McCain stands on videogames! Luckily, Lori Ingham caught up with the Republican candidate and asked him the question on everyone's lips:

With the current controversy over video game and media violence, what is your stance on allowing parents to make the decisions for their children on what they can see and watch?

McCain answered:

"Vidja games? You mean like Mimtendo and the Ataris? Listen, back in my day we didn't have videogames, we had a cup and ball, and we liked it!"

Sorry, not really. Ingram doesn't quote McCain exactly, but posts that he said he "felt that parents should be the ones to decide for their kids on a case by case basis. He then did a weird segue into the evils of child pornography from there."

There you have it, John McCain thinks parents should decide what's best for kids, but games remind him of child porn... does he have your vote?

http://www.g4tv.com/xplay/blog/post/686225/John_McCain_on_Gaming.html#comments

tcarcio
06-14-2008, 07:45 PM
The user comments after this article were more entertaining than the article itself:lol:


Forget his positions on the war and taxes; we want to know where presidential candidate John McCain stands on videogames! Luckily, Lori Ingham caught up with the Republican candidate and asked him the question on everyone's lips:

With the current controversy over video game and media violence, what is your stance on allowing parents to make the decisions for their children on what they can see and watch?

McCain answered:

"Vidja games? You mean like Mimtendo and the Ataris? Listen, back in my day we didn't have videogames, we had a cup and ball, and we liked it!"

Sorry, not really. Ingram doesn't quote McCain exactly, but posts that he said he "felt that parents should be the ones to decide for their kids on a case by case basis. He then did a weird segue into the evils of child pornography from there."

There you have it, John McCain thinks parents should decide what's best for kids, but games remind him of child porn... does he have your vote?

http://www.g4tv.com/xplay/blog/post/686225/John_McCain_on_Gaming.html#comments

Wow, nice spin. I am sure if you watched the whole interview you would have understood the whole conversation. Not just a part where a blogger spins it to make it look like something different. And yes I will probably vote for McCain but I will make a final decision when he picks a running mate. Hopefully it will be Mit Romney. One thing for sure I would never vote for Obama.

SOBAY310
06-14-2008, 08:23 PM
One thing for sure I would never vote for Obama.

blah, blah, blah, blah.....

Type A
06-14-2008, 08:37 PM
Wow, nice spin. I am sure if you watched the whole interview you would have understood the whole conversation. Not just a part where a blogger spins it to make it look like something different. And yes I will probably vote for McCain but I will make a final decision when he picks a running mate. Hopefully it will be Mit Romney. One thing for sure I would never vote for Obama.

Huh? What spin? Youre right, youll have to fill me in, cause I just took it as a joke (and I always take politics with a grain of salt anyway).

Ntruder
06-15-2008, 09:22 AM
does he have your vote?

The only way I would vote for McCain is if he was running against George W Bush.

tcarcio
06-15-2008, 09:50 AM
blah, blah, blah, blah.....

Sounds just like an Obama speech...........:lol:

tcarcio
06-15-2008, 09:53 AM
Huh? What spin? Youre right, youll have to fill me in, cause I just took it as a joke (and I always take politics with a grain of salt anyway).

If it was a joke then ,my bad, but I hear so many people only do the sound bite thing and then when you hear or read the entire interview you get what they meant. Both parties do it and it drives me nut's.........:eyecrazy

drbrosco
06-15-2008, 10:08 AM
Sounds just like an Obama speech...........:lol:

So true:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ntruder
06-15-2008, 10:29 AM
Sounds just like an Obama speech...........:lol:

Yeah, :lol: at your comment.

Lets contrast it with a McCain speech:

"My friends......the terrorists..... Iraq..... I will not surrender to the terrorists..... my friends..... Senator Obama wants to raise your taxes and surrender..... Iran is training Al Qaeda...... my friends..... The economy is not my strong point...."

talk about blah blah blah...

kamspy
06-15-2008, 01:05 PM
Yeah. We're really screwed. Neither of them are even qualified to run a large business, much less the United States.

I really hope all those conspiracy theories about other people being in power who we don't hear about are true, cuz if not....we're screwed.

Pinoy
06-15-2008, 01:51 PM
Yeah. We're really screwed. Neither of them are even qualified to run a large business, much less the United States.

I really hope all those conspiracy theories about other people being in power who we don't hear about are true, cuz if not....we're screwed.

xeleventy freaking million.... we are screwed.

Ntruder
06-15-2008, 02:04 PM
Yeah. We're really screwed. Neither of them are even qualified to run a large business, much less the United States.

I really hope all those conspiracy theories about other people being in power who we don't hear about are true, cuz if not....we're screwed.

The candidate is much less important in this case as the people their advisers and their cabinet. You get a clear vision, and surround yourself with experienced people and it will be fine.

Now McCain gets advice from people responsible for the housing crisis. That guy is his economic adviser.

junehhan
06-15-2008, 02:23 PM
Yeah, :lol: at your comment.

Lets contrast it with a McCain speech:

"My friends......the terrorists..... Iraq..... I will not surrender to the terrorists..... my friends..... Senator Obama wants to raise your taxes and surrender..... Iran is training Al Qaeda...... my friends..... The economy is not my strong point...."

talk about blah blah blah...

Up until recently, Obama did want to surrender until his campaign did a complete 180 and changed their position and now wishes to pull out no sooner than it can safely be done. McCain believes the war can be won by 2013. Personally, i'm a bit conflicted this year as I don't like any of those bitches running for president.

If it was McCain vs. GWBush, i'd probably still pick Bush. However, i'm not interested in voting for anyone who wants to raise my taxes. Single people always get screwed when taxes go up because we end up subsidizing a bunch of kids being born by people who can least take care of them.

Ntruder
06-15-2008, 02:36 PM
Up until recently, Obama did want to surrender until his campaign did a complete 180 and changed their position and now wishes to pull out no sooner than it can safely be done. McCain believes the war can be won by 2013. Personally, i'm a bit conflicted this year as I don't like any of those bitches running for president.

If it was McCain vs. GWBush, i'd probably still pick Bush. However, i'm not interested in voting for anyone who wants to raise my taxes. Single people always get screwed when taxes go up because we end up subsidizing a bunch of kids being born by people who can least take care of them.

Clearly you're a little misguided about several issues:

#1 I feel that you are very misinformed about the nature of the conflict in Iraq. The terms "winning" and "surrendering" don't apply to the Iraq conflict, because it is not us vs them. Its an occupation of a nation that is separated into different factions, and these factions need to make peace with each other. And if there is one thing that all 3 factions agree on, its that they want us to leave. Not surrender; at this point, a surrender is not even a possible outcome. There is "leave" and "stay." Staying isn't looking possible for much longer, since Nouri Al Maliki, along with every major faction in Iraq, are all now united against Bush's long term military presence agreement.

Wouldn't it be a funny coincidence if the one thing that finally unites the Iraqi's is not wanting the US around? :lol:

#2 you are very misinformed about the tax proposals by Senator Obama. He has clearly stated that he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $200,000/year. In fact, he said he wants to restructure the bush tax cuts so that MORE of the money is given back to the bottom 98% and more is taxed to the top 2%. That equals a tax cut to the bottom 98% and a tax increase to the top 2%. If your logic concludes that cutting taxes for 98% of americans = tax increase... Then :haha: The fallacy that Democrats raise taxes on the middle class is hogwash. Its a lie perpetrated by the right wing propaganda machine, and your fox noise diet has feed it to you well.

junehhan
06-15-2008, 03:04 PM
Clearly you are confused about several issues:

#1 you are confused about the nature of the conflict in Iraq. The terms "winning" and "surrendering" don't apply to the Iraq conflict, because it is not us vs them. Its an occupation of a nation that is separated into different factions, and these factions need to make peace with each other. And if there is one thing that all 3 factions agree on, its that they want us to leave. Not surrender; at this point, a surrender is not even a possible outcome. There is "leave" and "stay." Staying isn't looking possible for much longer, since Nouri Al Maliki, along with every major faction in Iraq, are all now united against Bush's long term military presence agreement.

Wouldn't it be a funny coincidence if the one thing that finally unites the Iraqi's is not wanting the US around? :lol:

#2 you are very confused about the tax proposals by Senator Obama. He has clearly stated that he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $200,000/year. In fact, he said he wants to restructure the bush tax cuts so that MORE of the money is given back to the bottom 98% and more is taxed to the top 2%. That equals a tax cut to the bottom 98% and a tax increase to the top 2%. If your logic concludes that cutting taxes for 98% of americans = tax increase... Then :haha: The fallacy that Democrats raise taxes on the middle class is hogwash. Its a lie perpetrated by the right wing propaganda machine, and your fox noise diet has feed it to you well.

You seem to know more about Foxnews than I do, which backs up the fact that more democrats watch Foxnews. I havn't even had a chance to watch them in a while now as I no longer have those premium cable channels. Money is a bit tight right now since i'm trying to salvage my plans for a vacation this year. I've been saving for over a year for this, but never planned on fuel costs this high as I budgeted 4000-4500 miles of driving at $3.50 a gallon and not $4.19 a gallon.

There is indeed a flaw is that strategy as it is nothing short of a blatant redistribution of income. Most people who make the kind of money they do make it because that is what they are simply worth to society. Why can't some people find a job that pays over minimum wage? Because that is all their skillset affords them and makes their "human" capital worth to society. You want people to literally become all they can be so that they make a LOT of money and pay a LOT of taxes as a result. My understanding is that he would have raised taxes for singles making over $97k a year, and something a bit higher than that for couples with children. Many of the people who are worth a high salary to society put in the effort to become all they can be because of the payoff involved for their hardwork. If you start reducing the potential payoff for hard work, what happens to the motivation? When you start taxing more, you will often get less of it for normal people when using the labour/liesure model that many microeconomists use.

It is really a balancing act between efficiency and equality where what is being divided is a slice of pie. If you raise taxes, the size of the pie will likely get smaler. Everyone seems to hate people who are wealthy, while totally ignoring the efforts and the risks many of them took to achieve their status in life.

I am not disagreeing with you about taxes having to go up, because taxes MUST go up, but we must insure that the money must also be spent responsibly. However, the problem is that any rise in taxes must be fair to all parties, especially the ones that contribute the most to society. We can talk all about fairness and equality for all, but in the end of the day we want to make sure everyone does their best to achieve the highest status in life possible so that everyone adds as much as they can to our taxbase. What I find apalling is how none of the candidates want to talk about our national debt problem, as I think this is a critical topic that must be dealt with now rather than later.


He also wants to shift much of the burden for the social security problem to the wealthier people without realizing that the entire system must be overhauled. You can't just keep dumping hard-earned taxpayer money into a system that is broken to begin with. Hell, I could take that money and put it into high quality corporate bonds and make a higher return than what they can the way they are with the social security trust.

tcarcio
06-15-2008, 03:28 PM
Yeah, :lol: at your comment.

Lets contrast it with a McCain speech:

"My friends......the terrorists..... Iraq..... I will not surrender to the terrorists..... my friends..... Senator Obama wants to raise your taxes and surrender..... Iran is training Al Qaeda...... my friends..... The economy is not my strong point...."

talk about blah blah blah...

I'm sorry but I just can't take someone with Tom Cruise as their avatar as someone who is playing with all 52. Jumped on any couches lately..;)

Ntruder
06-15-2008, 03:39 PM
You seem to know more about Foxnews than I do, which backs up the fact that more democrats watch Foxnews. I havn't even had a chance to watch them in a while now as I no longer have those premium cable channels. Money is a bit tight right now since i'm trying to salvage my plans for a vacation this year. I've been saving for over a year for this, but never planned on fuel costs this high as I budgeted 4000-4500 miles of driving at $3.50 a gallon and not $4.19 a gallon.

Anytime I turn on any sort of right wing propaganda channel, be in Glenn Beck, Fox Noise, or any right wing radio show, I hear the exact type of stuff that you say on here. Sorry to hear about the budget... thats definitely no good.

There is indeed a flaw is that strategy as it is nothing short of a blatant redistribution of income. Most people who make the kind of money they do make it because that is what they are simply worth to society. Why can't some people find a job that pays over minimum wage? Because that is all their skillset affords them and makes their "human" capital worth to society. You want people to literally become all they can be so that they make a LOT of money and pay a LOT of taxes as a result.

The philosophy of redistribution of wealth is a whole different topic that I'd be happy to debate... in a separate thread.

My understanding is that he would have raised taxes for singles making over $97k a year, and something a bit higher than that for couples with children.

What made you arrive at this understanding?

Many of the people who are worth a high salary to society put in the effort to become all they can be because of the payoff involved for their hardwork. If you start reducing the potential payoff for hard work, what happens to the motivation? When you start taxing more, you will often get less of it for normal people when using the labour/liesure model that many microeconomists use.

It is really a balancing act between efficiency and equality where what is being divided is a slice of pie. If you raise taxes, the size of the pie will likely get smaler. Everyone seems to hate people who are wealthy, while totally ignoring the efforts and the risks many of them took to achieve their status in life.

I am not disagreeing with you about taxes having to go up, because taxes MUST go up, but we must insure that the money must also be spent responsibly. However, the problem is that any rise in taxes must be fair to all parties, especially the ones that contribute the most to society. We can talk all about fairness and equality for all, but in the end of the day we want to make sure everyone does their best to achieve the highest status in life possible so that everyone adds as much as they can to our taxbase.

Again, the ideology behind the concept of wealth redistribution is a debate I'd be happy to have, because I believe its a function of democracy that is required while in the presence of a loosely regulated free market. If our market were more strictly regulated, then perhaps we could do away with most forms of taxation. I think you are getting too hung up on the idea of taxing the rich and giving to the poor. 40 cents of every tax dollar you give up is spent on our military. The amount of tax money that is actually spent by giving money to people with lower incomes is actually quite low, but people generally don't like this idea, so they negatively associate "welfare" type programs to taxation. Its understandable, but it really doesnt paint an accurate picture of what taxation is used for.

What I find apalling is how none of the candidates want to talk about our national debt problem, as I think this is a critical topic that must be dealt with now rather than later.

I'll agree with you here, and I'll also point out that our country never really borrowed money and accumulated debt until Ronald Regan. He alone accumulated more debt, adjusted for inflation, than all previous presidents combined. GWB has accomplished the same task. Bill Clinton, however, left office with a budget surplus. Something that is long gone. Modern day Republicans like to give tax breaks, but they don't decrease their spending. That obviously amounts to huge amounts of debt.


He also wants to shift much of the burden for the social security problem to the wealthier people without realizing that the entire system must be overhauled. You can't just keep dumping hard-earned taxpayer money into a system that is broken to begin with. Hell, I could take that money and put it into high quality corporate bonds and make a higher return than what they can the way they are with the social security trust.

If I remember correctly, his plan was to elevate the ceiling on SS tax. So you are taxed on slightly higher than the first $95k. So again, this doesn't affect anyone making less than $95k/year.

Secondly, social security is only broken because republican presidents bankrupted it. They've robbed the treasury! Its a system that CAN be fixed, and I strongly believe that privatizing social security is NOT the answer. When you privatize it, you add profit to the equation, and its no longer about people's retirements; its now about making some financial planning company maximum profit and maximum shareholder revenue. And those who the program was supposed to benefit get lost in the fight for maximum profit.

junehhan
06-15-2008, 08:20 PM
Anytime I turn on any sort of right wing propaganda channel, be in Glenn Beck, Fox Noise, or any right wing radio show, I hear the exact type of stuff that you say on here. Sorry to hear about the budget... thats definitely no good.

Yeah, but what can you do. This is why i'm a huge supporter of opening up more drilling. Since the price of oil will not likely decrease anytime soon, it can be a very good source of revenue for our country instead of just letting China keep drilling off our coasts. If anything, we can earmark the extra revenue from drilling to go into only alternative fuel research. It might not keep fuel prices from increasing, but it should still help keep it from going up much higher as you basically are increasing supply, which depresses price.

The philosophy of redistribution of wealth is a whole different topic that I'd be happy to debate... in a separate thread.



What made you arrive at this understanding?

It is something I heard while watching the evening news a couple months back.

Again, the ideology behind the concept of wealth redistribution is a debate I'd be happy to have, because I believe its a function of democracy that is required while in the presence of a loosely regulated free market. If our market were more strictly regulated, then perhaps we could do away with most forms of taxation. I think you are getting too hung up on the idea of taxing the rich and giving to the poor. 40 cents of every tax dollar you give up is spent on our military. The amount of tax money that is actually spent by giving money to people with lower incomes is actually quite low, but people generally don't like this idea, so they negatively associate "welfare" type programs to taxation. Its understandable, but it really doesnt paint an accurate picture of what taxation is used for.

Military spending is not a bad thing. America is really the only country that is both capable and willing to police the rest of the world from the nutjobs in these 3rd and 4th world countries. It hasn't been all for naught as it has also created any jobs(they retrofit and shield many of the Humvees here near Cincinnati), and has also produced much useful technology over the years such as the internet, cell phones, satellites, and so on. It is a complex issue but i'm not sure more regulation is the solution. I believe the first thing that must be done is closing up the tax codes and simplifying it. Close it up and limit the exploitation of loopholes first. Taxes will have to go up at some point in the future, but I understand what you are saying. I look at numbers in the form of percentages rather than the actual nominal value. I think we agree more than you think, we just have a different view on how to accomplish it. However, there are some government arms that I believe need to be seriously reorganized. We can discuss more as my sister keeps calling me because she needs a ride back home, and can't take the bus since it isn't safe in our neighborhood.



I'll agree with you here, and I'll also point out that our country never really borrowed money and accumulated debt until Ronald Regan. He alone accumulated more debt, adjusted for inflation, than all previous presidents combined. GWB has accomplished the same task. Bill Clinton, however, left office with a budget surplus. Something that is long gone. Modern day Republicans like to give tax breaks, but they don't decrease their spending. That obviously amounts to huge amounts of debt.

Whether any of them want to talk about it or not, this national debt is absolutely obscene, and is one of the few things that have really angered me as NOONE wants to talk about it. Obama blames Bush, but offers NO solutions on how he plans on dealing with it. The blame is justified, but we NEED a solution to this. Taxes WILL have to go up, and that is suicide in an election year like this one. Personally, I think we should start working with the Europeans to start pulling our presence out. It has been a long time since WWII, and it is time Europe starts paying for their own national security. I also think it is time we start arming the Japanese and start letting them take care of themselves. This could free up a significant amount of money, which is a start. Besides, i'd like to see how much of a welfare state Europe can afford once they have to start paying for their own security.




If I remember correctly, his plan was to elevate the ceiling on SS tax. So you are taxed on slightly higher than the first $95k. So again, this doesn't affect anyone making less than $95k/year.

This goes back to my argument of the SS system being broken and needing to be overhauled. I am a firm believer that people should be responsible for their own retirement. A nice mix of high quality corporate bonds alone can provide much higher returns while keeping the increase in risk marginal. Actually, it hasn't been only republican presidents that bankrupted it. ALL of them and both parties are responsible for raiding the SS trust.

I think adding profits to the equation is a very good thing. When someone can profit from a transaction, they have a vested interest in making sure something is as productive as possible. Kind of like a commission broker who you pay on commission rather than a flat fee or fee per each trade. The profit motive is a very strong and very motivating force, which is why America with less than 5% of the world's population can produce 25% of the world's GDP. This is why in most cases, the private sector will almost always outperform the public sector. This is why China has caught on to the capitalist ferver as they have realized that the industries that are being privatized in some form, or at least reformed, and seeing much greater performance than their state owned enterprises.

Secondly, social security is only broken because republican presidents bankrupted it. They've robbed the treasury! Its a system that CAN be fixed, and I strongly believe that privatizing social security is NOT the answer. When you privatize it, you add profit to the equation, and its no longer about people's retirements; its now about making some financial planning company maximum profit and maximum shareholder revenue. And those who the program was supposed to benefit get lost in the fight for maximum profit.

...

kamspy
06-15-2008, 08:27 PM
Man. This War Economy talk makes me want to play more MGS4:D

Ntruder
06-15-2008, 10:34 PM
Man. This War Economy talk makes me want to play more MGS4:D

Yeah, me too.

June, I'll reply to your last post either tomorrow or Tuesday. I have lots to say, but I need to play some MGS4 and then go to bed. Going to Six Flags tomorrow. 2 for 1 admission and new Dark Knight ride.

GLOW
06-16-2008, 08:01 AM
The user comments after this article were more entertaining than the article itself:lol:


Forget his positions on the war and taxes; we want to know where presidential candidate John McCain stands on videogames! Luckily, Lori Ingham caught up with the Republican candidate and asked him the question on everyone's lips:

With the current controversy over video game and media violence, what is your stance on allowing parents to make the decisions for their children on what they can see and watch?

McCain answered:

"Vidja games? You mean like Mimtendo and the Ataris? Listen, back in my day we didn't have videogames, we had a cup and ball, and we liked it!"

Sorry, not really. Ingram doesn't quote McCain exactly, but posts that he said he "felt that parents should be the ones to decide for their kids on a case by case basis. He then did a weird segue into the evils of child pornography from there."

There you have it, John McCain thinks parents should decide what's best for kids, but games remind him of child porn... does he have your vote?

http://www.g4tv.com/xplay/blog/post/686225/John_McCain_on_Gaming.html#comments

Why the hell don't they post the whole interview so we don't have to read it out of context? I'm not a big fan of McCain - especially after that "100 year war" comment and how willing he is to change his personal stance on issues to those of the far right - but I don't believe for a second that he was equating child porn to video games. If McCain wants us to be occupying Iraq for 100 years, he's going want as many young people playing Call of Duty 16 and Halo 9 as possible to promote the idea that killing for your country is "cool".

Cygnus
06-16-2008, 08:37 AM
Heh..listening to mccain speak is definitely one of the cures for insomnia... If he sez "my friends..." one more time in a speech... :rolleyes: :banghead:

Yeah, :lol: at your comment.

Lets contrast it with a McCain speech:

"My friends......the terrorists..... Iraq..... I will not surrender to the terrorists..... my friends..... Senator Obama wants to raise your taxes and surrender..... Iran is training Al Qaeda...... my friends..... The economy is not my strong point...."

talk about blah blah blah...

F91
06-16-2008, 08:45 AM
Same here!!!

The only way I would vote for McCain is if he was running against George W Bush.

F91
06-16-2008, 08:47 AM
Wow, I knew there was a reason I had tcarcio (whatever) on ignore.

GLOW
06-16-2008, 09:00 AM
Same here!!!

I agree but I don't see much of a difference other than McCain's position on torture and earmark spending. Like Obama says, "voting for McCain is like voting for 4 more years of Bush"