Senate Candidate Attacked Over World of Warcraft

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Gearhead mk2:
Sorry man, wasn't trying to get into a big debate. And for the record, I'm not even American. I'm British. In fact, I live in Brighton, which is bassically the LGBT capital of Europe. Anyway, while I disagree with basically everything the right wing stands for, I got nothing against a right-wing party running for a position. Competion is good. What I got against the American Republican party is that they're so freaking dumb! If an intelligent right-wing party was as poplar as them, I'd still dislike them because of my views, but I'd at least admire them. Take a look at the English Conservative party: they're bassically doing financial class war. They're like, evil geniuses, and while I hate them for being such assholes, I gotta admit they're pretty cunning. I'm just trying to wrap my head around why so many smart people support a party as stupid as the American Republicans, when their are probably a fair few intelligent right-wing parties out there.

The reason why there are intelligent people who support the Republican party is usually because of a belief in the economic plans and ideals of the Republican party, not really the social aspect. Plus the other issue with two parties is that once a party takes a position, the other party automatically becomes the place for supporters of the opposite position. So even if we'd like to shift focus to economics, the retards who are still 'lulgayzsuck' will attach to the Republican party because the Democratic party supported gay rights first.

Honestly, I'd like to see gay marriage legalized. That's the only way the issue can resolve anyways. But I'd like much more for us to get something resembling a coherent economic plan going, and if that means having to also draw support from people who oppose gay marriage, then that's what I'm going to have to do. (Feel free to criticize my priorities here. As I am not gay, gay rights obviously rank lower on my personal priority list than they could)

That's really the center of the problem with a two party system obviously: I'm stuck in a position where I have to pick a party even though both of them say a number of things I really really don't agree with. The political system is definitely broken, but that doesn't mean all the people are stupid. It just means we're at a point where there's no easy fix to the increasingly terrible quagmire that is American politics.

Yeah that one thing you learn when you get into politics, your opponents will use ANYTHING from your past against you. And if they can't find anything they'll make something up.

DonTsetsi:
In some countries it's illegal to slander your opponents. There, you must actually advertise yourself, not accuse others.

Indeed.
I dare say that it is much better that way.

OT:
It's disturbing ho low some politicians are willing to go.
I find it disgusting.

In all seriousness we are probably going to be seeing more of this as the years go on.

In our generation we will have an ex-president as head of a guild!

Falterfire:

The reason why there are intelligent people who support the Republican party is usually because of a belief in the economic plans and ideals of the Republican party, not really the social aspect. Plus the other issue with two parties is that once a party takes a position, the other party automatically becomes the place for supporters of the opposite position. So even if we'd like to shift focus to economics, the retards who are still 'lulgayzsuck' will attach to the Republican party because the Democratic party supported gay rights first.

Honestly, I'd like to see gay marriage legalized. That's the only way the issue can resolve anyways. But I'd like much more for us to get something resembling a coherent economic plan going, and if that means having to also draw support from people who oppose gay marriage, then that's what I'm going to have to do. (Feel free to criticize my priorities here. As I am not gay, gay rights obviously rank lower on my personal priority list than they could)

That's really the center of the problem with a two party system obviously: I'm stuck in a position where I have to pick a party even though both of them say a number of things I really really don't agree with. The political system is definitely broken, but that doesn't mean all the people are stupid. It just means we're at a point where there's no easy fix to the increasingly terrible quagmire that is American politics.

Well, there is. Just stop voting in idiots. Keep Obama in for another term or two, he's at least trying to sort stuff out. As far as I can tell, the only reason he hasn't fixed everything allready is because of all the bloody companies and right-wing military types getting in his way.

Gearhead mk2:
Well, there is. Just stop voting in idiots. Keep Obama in for another term or two, he's at least trying to sort stuff out. As far as I can tell, the only reason he hasn't fixed everything allready is because of all the bloody companies and right-wing military types getting in his way.

Except he's doing some stuff right, but definitely not all of it. There's a large number of economists (Who I personally agree with, you may not) who believe that the strategies being pursued by Obama will not fix our issues and will in fact make them worse. Obviously his economists believe the opposite. (There's a bitter rift in economics between classical economists and Keynsian economists)

In order to avoid pushing this any further off topic I will conclude with the following: Both parties have large enough flaws to ensure that there are a large percentage of intelligent people willing to support and help fund each side.

I think my opinions would be best summarized by MovieBob on these kinds of people and how they view gamers and common behavior for them, and through some jaded belief system, think that how we act in the video game is always a reflection of how we want to be in the real world.

http://www.screwattack.com/shows/partners/game-overthinker/game-overthinker-episode-25-violence-golden

Falterfire:
In order to avoid pushing this any further off topic I will conclude with the following: Both parties have large enough flaws to ensure that there are a large percentage of intelligent people willing to support and help fund each side.

Agreed.

DVS BSTrD:
No taxes, self employed/sustained and half the races are trying to kill you no matter what?
I think we all know exactly who's fantasy world that is!

I just wanted to tell you, you're awesome.

I have a friend who live in Maine...I'm going to tell her to vote for Lachowicz.

Gearhead mk2:
...this is the third most stupid and disturbing thing I've seen out of the republican party.

This week, you mean?

Falterfire:

Gearhead mk2:
Sorry man, wasn't trying to get into a big debate. And for the record, I'm not even American. I'm British. In fact, I live in Brighton, which is bassically the LGBT capital of Europe. Anyway, while I disagree with basically everything the right wing stands for, I got nothing against a right-wing party running for a position. Competion is good. What I got against the American Republican party is that they're so freaking dumb! If an intelligent right-wing party was as poplar as them, I'd still dislike them because of my views, but I'd at least admire them. Take a look at the English Conservative party: they're bassically doing financial class war. They're like, evil geniuses, and while I hate them for being such assholes, I gotta admit they're pretty cunning. I'm just trying to wrap my head around why so many smart people support a party as stupid as the American Republicans, when their are probably a fair few intelligent right-wing parties out there.

The reason why there are intelligent people who support the Republican party is usually because of a belief in the economic plans and ideals of the Republican party, not really the social aspect. Plus the other issue with two parties is that once a party takes a position, the other party automatically becomes the place for supporters of the opposite position. So even if we'd like to shift focus to economics, the retards who are still 'lulgayzsuck' will attach to the Republican party because the Democratic party supported gay rights first.

Honestly, I'd like to see gay marriage legalized. That's the only way the issue can resolve anyways. But I'd like much more for us to get something resembling a coherent economic plan going, and if that means having to also draw support from people who oppose gay marriage, then that's what I'm going to have to do. (Feel free to criticize my priorities here. As I am not gay, gay rights obviously rank lower on my personal priority list than they could)

That's really the center of the problem with a two party system obviously: I'm stuck in a position where I have to pick a party even though both of them say a number of things I really really don't agree with. The political system is definitely broken, but that doesn't mean all the people are stupid. It just means we're at a point where there's no easy fix to the increasingly terrible quagmire that is American politics.

If you believe in fiscal conservatism, but not social conservatism, why don't you just vote Libertarian? Sure, it may feel like a "wasted vote", but if you're voting for people that don't represent you, then democracy has failed.

'She plays the vidyagames, she must be EVILLLL!'

Is it 1993 again?

The Plunk:
If you believe in fiscal conservatism, but not social conservatism, why don't you just vote Libertarian? Sure, it may feel like a "wasted vote", but if you're voting for people that don't represent you, then democracy has failed.

Well, that was my point. I have two choices: Vote for a candidate that I only halfway support, or do what amounts to setting my vote on fire and watching it burn. Sure I could take the moral high ground and vote for what I believe in, but an empty symbolic gesture isn't much better than voting for the guy I hate least.

ANYWAYS ON TOPIC:
I personally would be more inclined to vote for a senator obviously part of the game community, but I'm not sure I'd vote for a World of Warcraft player. Yay contradictions!

Man, this could almost be an Onion piece. Not gonna lie--were she in my list of people to vote for, I'd totally vote for someone who's willing to throw a dick-punch or two to those that need it.

The debate last night could have used a dick-punch or two. Goddam that was awful.

This is why people hate republicans.

What is wrong with playing WoW? I say she should own up to it and talk about all the good and cool stuff she does in game. Like her hundreds of fetch quests as charitable work for those unable to act on their own.

If that is the biggest "dirt" opposition was able to dig up, then Colleen Lachowicz might as well go directly for presidency

Yup, that's politics. Everyone will get attacked for everything.

Gotta say, American politics is a lot erm... more interesting than british. Not really a reason to not vote for her, unless you're one of those "Games r EVILS!" types. In fact, this could actually get my vote.

Captcha: Hello world

Hello captcha.

So what they're basically trying to say is that anyone who's ever enjoyed playing a video game other than Lemmings should have no future in politics?

God knows what they'd do if a politician was revealed to have Manhunt in their gaming library... or even have a gaming library

If this is the worst the opposing party can come up with, she is probably a safe candidate to vote for.

Colleen Lachowicz is now GUARANTEED to win in Maine. I'd put money on it. Seriously. I will be amazed if she doesn't.

What? No bender yet? Must be rectified!

Seriously, this is rich :D Right up there with our politician giving a middle finger to his opponent in live broadcast and saying "I didn't know there was ton of money in those shoe boxes" :D

Seriously? Why can't we have an election anywhere where we just stick to the issues and don't have to bring up dirt on the other...

I guess I live in a dream world where someone can't win simply because they actually work for it and have a plan other than 'lets throw money at it, sweep the problems under the carpet, give it gift wrapped to the rest of the world'. *shrug, rides off into space on a flying donut*

I mean come on... it's just getting silly...

At least comedy shows will have more material to use after this little 'stunt'...

Imagination: Now confirmed to be considered by other politicians to be a bad quality in Politicians

God forbid she has an imagination in a job where you have to imagine solutions to problems.

Andy Chalk:
or point-and-despair

Mostly this for me, and I'm not even American. The fact that video game habits is turning political is mind blowing.

Falterfire:
If you've been through the country, you'll acknowledge that wherever you go, people are pretty much people: Mostly normal, sane people you wouldn't mind spending an afternoon with. Keeping that in mind, remember that a large percentage of people in certain areas support the Republican party.

You have chosen to instantly dismiss every single person in the Republican party as a idiotic barely functioning simpleton. This means that you are taking the stance that automatically Republican=Stupid. You are instantly dismissing an entire, millions strong (Not hyperbole: See election results) party as ignorant rednecks.

...

On that note: I am a Republican, and I am an atheist, and I support gay rights. Aren't stereotypes counterproductive?

I just want to jump in here and ask, if you are indeed an atheist and support gay rights, why on earth do you support the Republican party? It's all very well to criticise people for stereotyping, but think for a second: you are personally going out there and saying that you support the people who, in every news article I see on the topic, are progressively only in the sense that they are seeking new ways to be completely anti social, selfish and retarded. You can't then turn around and say 'don't judge me by what my favourite political party believes in!' because you have announced that you believe in it too, by proxy of supporting them in their bid to lead the country.

It is ENTIRELY legitimate to make judgements about people based on their support of a political party. No-one makes you sign up to support these people - to do so is an affirmation that what they say speaks for what you believe in.

That's one of the reasons I'm quite unlikely to vote in the next UK elections - the Conservatives what to sell the country to the highest bidder and pocket the proceeds - to hell with anyone not in their club; the Lib Dems slipped in on broken pledges, made a pact with the Devil, and now think that they can retain support on more promises to not carry on doing what they've spent the last two years doing, and Labour have suddenly realised that for ten years they did fuck all, and in retrospect undoing some of the damage from the last Conservative government would have been a better idea than getting rid of all the money - and naturally, now they'll "pledge" to sort it all out. We've seen where that gets the electorate...

Rant aside, if you don't want to be tarred with the same brush, doing lean on their wall (or however that metaphor works out...)

Has she responded to any of this? It'd be interesting to see if she gets embarrassed about it or sticks her head up and says; so what? it's the 21st century.

I find this hilarious and that's all I have to say.

She should run with this! Get the youth vote!

"Vote Lachowicz! Dickpunch Arthas!"

She ought to bring a crazy fantasy display dagger to the debate and ram it in her podium and grin at her opponent.

She could also spin it as being in touch with more of the world than her opponent.

I suppose she should've rolled a Hunter. You know how much Republicans fetishize guns. [/politicalhumor]

Elate:
Possible state senator that plays WoW? That would equal a vote for me.

Same here. Remember how it turned out that an official for the US Embassy in Libya (who was sadly killed in the attack it suffered last month) was also a high-level officer in EVE Online's Goonsquad? Just because someone plays video games doesn't make them irresponsible, mentally deficient or prone to violence.

Hell, I'm more worried about politicians who brag about hunting. "I need to prove my manhood by killing things that can't defend themselves! Wanna hear about my foreign policy?"

She kills for the Horde and recognizes the need to safely stab people to death in order to vent steam. I'd vote for that Democrat.

Falterfire:

Well, that was my point. I have two choices: Vote for a candidate that I only halfway support, or do what amounts to setting my vote on fire and watching it burn. Sure I could take the moral high ground and vote for what I believe in, but an empty symbolic gesture isn't much better than voting for the guy I hate least.

You know what's also an empty symbolic gesture? Voting for someone you don't even support, because you think the other guy's worse when in reality, both are just as bad. It's merely boiled down to the 'flavor' of bad you desire. The current American first-past-the-post system is naturally inclined to devolve into two major parties due to political strategizing and is completely broken as a form of democracy. After Perot nearly upturned the apple cart, the two major parties instituted election laws that make a third party or independent candidate an even more remote possibility than it was before.

In essence, I think voting in the current American system is completely pointless - even more so than 'throwing your vote away' by voting third party for someone you actually agree with. The two major parties are great at attacking the other side and not so great at actually accomplishing anything other than bombing the shit out of the Middle East and honestly they can't even get that right. They're also great at turning regular people against eachother by making them chant 'BLUE TEAM BLUE TEAM!' or 'RED TEAM RED TEAM!' and being absolutely vile to anyone who's fan of a different color than they are.

Power-hungry rich oligarch A or power-hungry rich oligarch B is an illusion of choice. When someone tells someone else not to vote, what I usually hear folks say in reply is 'If you don't vote, you give up the right to be heard'. I say instead, if I do vote for either of the two evils just because one has a more pleasing shape to me, aren't I instead perpetuating this horribly broken system and implicitly endorsing it by playing along? Participating in a corrupt system run by corrupt political parties does not make my voice 'heard' - after all, even if I don't choose, I've still made a choice. I don't see that changing until they add a 'None of the above' to the ballot.

"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

I'm hoping that more than half the people who receive those mailings go: "Whoa, awesome!" and change their vote in favor of her.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here