Slashdot Mirror


'World of Warcraft' Candidate For Maine State Senate Wins Election

Teancum writes "Colleen Lachowicz, candidate for the State Senate District 25 of Maine, won the election yesterday against her opponent Thomas Martin. This race was notable in part because her World of Warcraft character that was mentioned earlier on Slashdot, where the Maine Republican Party turned her game playing into a significant issue. It is also notable that she was able to raise a total of $6,300 in campaign contributions from gamers who came to her defense in her successful campaign. The Maine GOP even tried to block these contributions where Lachowicz was cleared of any wrong doing and the investigation was dropped."

220 comments

  1. FOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    FOR THE HOARDE

    1. Re:FOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I guess this would be a "Leroy Jenkins" moment for the GOP:)

    2. Re:FOR by pulski · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lok'tar ogar!

    3. Re:FOR by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

      How'd the GP get that in? The whole post was like yelling.

    4. Re:FOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      GOP response:

      We'll KEEP TRYING!

    5. Re:FOR by jamiesan · · Score: 2

      "Run for Congress!" they said.

      "See the world!" they said.

      I'd rather be kiting.

    6. Re:FOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thommmmmmmmmaasssss Marrrtiiiiinn!!!!!!!

    7. Re:FOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FOR THE HOARDE

      Seriously? There are only two factions and you can't spell the five-lettered one correctly?

  2. There's a Senator in my basement! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apparently you can run the state of Maine from your parents basement.

    1. Re:There's a Senator in my basement! by FacePlant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where are my moderator points when I need them!?!

      --
      My Heart Is A Flower
    2. Re:There's a Senator in my basement! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apparently you can run the state of Maine from your parents basement.

      Better this than running the state of Maine from your lobbyist's basement or worse. ^_^

    3. Re:There's a Senator in my basement! by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      What is wrong with that?

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    4. Re:There's a Senator in my basement! by asylumx · · Score: 4, Funny

      Where are my moderator points when I need them!?!

      Locked away in a dungeon behind raid mobs.

    5. Re:There's a Senator in my basement! by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know that smelly unkempt guy who shows up at your LAN party and has just about every cheat installed and who shouts PWN! every time his aimbot blows your guy's head off? Yeah...the guy you want to knife in the Kidneys.

      These guys will run for office one day as a Democrat.

      Horseshit. We all know that guy is a libertarian.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    6. Re:There's a Senator in my basement! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever been through a Maine winter? You practically have to run Maine from the basement!

    7. Re:There's a Senator in my basement! by rahvin112 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You are obviously under the impression that there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats.

      When you are a bit older or less brainwashed by news sources you'll realize there is little to no real difference between the parties. They both throw around a couple social legislation ideas that are only slightly different (mostly to try to divide the electorate) but otherwise on nearly every other aspect of government they are identical. And by running around claiming either party is the devil you've fallen into their trap of dividing the electorate so that they can control the electorate. It also makes you a fool.

    8. Re:There's a Senator in my basement! by madhi19 · · Score: 1

      ^ Where are my fucking mod point when I need them?

    9. Re:There's a Senator in my basement! by Mabhatter · · Score: 2

      How did a WOW player come out from their computer long enough to get elected! It's a lady (a lady WoW player... That's like a unicorn!) so I picture Claire from "Knights of Good" with her squid hat tossing chicken nuggets to the toddlers.

      http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0232211/quotes

    10. Re:There's a Senator in my basement! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I currently have no mod points. The parent post doesn't deserve to be modded flamebait. It's actually depressingly insightful and/or informative, even if it hurts to admit it.

    11. Re:There's a Senator in my basement! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to grind for those.

  3. The most lucrative World of Warcraft profession... by InvisibleClergy · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...is apparently running for Senate. According to my sources, that's enough money to buy 4.8 million gold!

  4. Let me be the first to call her a by Nerdasor · · Score: 0, Troll

    Noob

    1. Re:Let me be the first to call her a by jgtg32a · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually IIRC her toon was linked last time and judging by her spec and gear she is a noob

    2. Re:Let me be the first to call her a by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well I think her character hadn't been updated in a while. Perhaps she had RL issues (like running for office) that interfered with her time to play the game after the last expansion.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Let me be the first to call her a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, her opponent tried to paint her as a hard core WoW player because she was level 85 and had made some posts of the WoW forums. Obviously just being max level isn't any sort of accomplishment in an MMO these days, and her armory profile is more telling. She was clearly a very casual player looking over it, provided this rogue was her only toon. I recall that she she was all in blues with zero significant raid or PvP experience. She hadn't logged in since late 2011, either. While I don't expect non-WoW players to recognize this, she was clearly a casual who likely spent very little of her time playing.

    4. Re:Let me be the first to call her a by pulski · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Admittedly, when this story first broke, I checked her Armory page, saw her Achievement Points (Low) and immediately knew her playing WoW was a non-issue.

    5. Re:Let me be the first to call her a by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or maybe she's one of the few who plays for fun, and not for gear?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:Let me be the first to call her a by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 1

      Everything you said can be understood by anyone who plays MMOs, given they generally all use the same semantics.

      --

      Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

    7. Re:Let me be the first to call her a by TFAFalcon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Damn casuals.

    8. Re:Let me be the first to call her a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judging by her spec? With no talents and no glyphs, she's clearly not much of a player right now at all. Because they're blank, and were reset as part of a recent patch.

      Gear-wise? Same thing. So out of date, she even predates Transmogs.

      Looking at her achievements, she has Glory of the Ulduar raider and a smattering of Icecrown Citadel achievements.

      The description you're looking for is not that she's a noob. It's that she doesn't play.

      Maybe once she did, but not now. Not for a long while.

    9. Re:Let me be the first to call her a by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shes a rogue, we already knew that.

    10. Re:Let me be the first to call her a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glyphs were reset at least at the start of this expansion, so a couple of months (don't know if there was another one in the Cata patches).

      She was level 85, so evidently she played for at least a couple of weeks late last year (when Cata was released and the level cap went up).

    11. Re:Let me be the first to call her a by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Not every player plays for the end game loots. There as a very large demographic of people who use the game a s social media.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:Let me be the first to call her a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm glad people like you have self-selected yourself out of the gene pool. thanks.

    13. Re:Let me be the first to call her a by twocows · · Score: 1

      I believe she plays on an RP server, where they're often less focused on gear and more on role-playing.

  5. Under Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An assassin is not a rogue... well, depending on who is being assassinated.

    1. Re:Under Obama by subanark · · Score: 1

      Assassination is one of three possible specializations for the Rogue class. According to her wow profile:
      http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/garrosh/Santiaga/simple
      She did not do any end game content and hasn't logged on in almost 2 months (and even then only a very small amount). She seems to have been a much more active player back in 2010, but probably went to a much more causal play schedule once politics started up.

  6. Precedent by techstar25 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fortunately she is very well qualified. It actually sets a nice precedent. Video game playing, as a hobby, should not reflect poorly on someones character or ability to hold a position of public office. From now on everyone will remember how this tactic backfired. Thank you Ms.Lachowicz.

    1. Re:Precedent by casca69 · · Score: 2

      Even better?IF you have a better character, you can now Gank a sitting Senator, and not fear SS intervention!

    2. Re:Precedent by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a gamer, I entirely agree. Although... there is being a gamer, and then there is the person who has a gaming command center in their parents' basement with the delivery tube for the Mountain Dew and Cheetos. I might consider an extreme amount of time playing to be a detriment.

      On the other hand, if she has enough social skills to become a candidate, she's probably okay.

      I'm guessing she's probably a tiny bit more on the casual side.

    3. Re:Precedent by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Lachowicz’s campaign attracted international attention after the Maine Republican Party created a website to criticize her participation as a player in World of Warcraft, an online fantasy game.

      "Colleen Lachowicz spends hundreds of hours playing in her online world Azeroth, as an Orc Assassination Rogue named Santiaga?"

      ...The Maine GOP is going after the Democratic state Senate hopeful, saying online comments she’s made using her World of Warcraft alias raise questions about her judgment and maturity.

      I sincerely hope that Republicans are not hypocrites and go with the same zeal after candidates spending hundreds of hours playing the most popular offline fantasy game. After all, it's not like they have nothing better to do, right?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Precedent by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would consider golfing 8 hours a day to be a detriment too. Or weight lifting. Or knitting. Or pretty much any other hobby that takes up more time than a full time job. It's not about gaming, it's about priorities and the time sink.

    5. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wishful thinking, IMHO.

      Politicians are frequently criticized for their choice of past times, whether it's hunting or basketball or the diety they pray to (if any).

    6. Re:Precedent by chilenexus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      don't forget shooting your lawyer friend in the face with a shotgun - and convincing him to apologize to you for it. That's a hobby that we really need politicians to do less of.

    7. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Video game playing, as a hobby, should not reflect poorly on someones character or ability to hold a position of public office.

      I think the lesson is that it isn't a thing anymore. Nobody cares if you play video games, because so many of us either grew up with video games as a regular part of life, or at least your (now adult) children all did.

      So the lower bound on the population that are even likely to care is probably in great-grandparent territory.

    8. Re:Precedent by Synerg1y · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good example, no politician has yet been reprimanded for playing golf (I'm sure a lot of them do), I think this whole scenario reflects on how acceptable social norms are shifting. There was a time that PC gaming automatically labeled you a nerd with no social skills or chance of acquiring them. Golf has always been accepted, especially by rich white men.

    9. Re:Precedent by Jeng · · Score: 4, Informative

      no politician has yet been reprimanded for playing golf

      You might want to google "Obama golf".

      http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/235844/deconstructing-the-5-most-ridiculous-myths-about-barack-obama

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    10. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not apply that to everyone, though. I pride myself in spending more time on hobbies (my "life") than I do at work. Not everyone has the same values you do.
      Work = way to get money to fund things I actually care about.

    11. Re:Precedent by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      ...or the diety they pray to (if any).

      I see what you've done there. All hail His Noodly Appendage!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My work is my hobby you insensitive clod!

    13. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say it depends. If a political candidate A has a big hobby interest in golf and political candidate B has a big hobby interest in, say, electronics, I'm going to judge candidate B as being more intelligent and worthy of the job.

    14. Re:Precedent by BoredAtWorkWhatElse · · Score: 5, Funny

      Politicians shooting lawyers? I don't really see the downside.

    15. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Per the WoW armory profile her opponent was kind enough to link, yes, she was a very casual player by anyone's standards.

    16. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I sincerely hope that Republicans are not hypocrites and go with the same zeal after candidates spending hundreds of hours playing the most popular offline fantasy game [skepticsan...dbible.com]. After all, it's not like they have nothing better to do, right?

      Republicans? Not hypocrites? You mean the same party who just got done putting who is, for all political intents and purposes, "John Kerry, But Republican This Time!"* up as their candidate for the president of the United States and somehow expected it to work for THEM? THAT'S the group you're hoping aren't hypocrites?

      *: Both were stiff, robotic candidates from Massachusetts who were chosen solely on a "the best the party could come up with" basis against an incumbent president because their respective parties HAD to have SOMEONE, both had enigmatic platforms and no clear mission statement apart from "I'll do not the clearly evil, evil things the current guy is doing, and I'm not the current guy, so yay!", and both notoriously flip-flopped on issues when questioned on them... but hey, Romney was Republican!

    17. Re:Precedent by pulski · · Score: 1

      Why do you think he didn't get in any trouble?

    18. Re:Precedent by meerling · · Score: 2

      I do, when politicians start shooting their only real allies and get away with it, how long until they start shooting their detractors, ie - you and me.

    19. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Politicians shooting lawyers? I don't really see the downside.

      The politician didn't get in trouble, and what's worse, the lawyer didn't die.

    20. Re:Precedent by meerling · · Score: 2

      During Desert Storm, the amount of munitions we could ship to the front was greatly limited because the base commander refused to close the golf course, despite the fact that virtually nobody on base had any time to golf. (12+ hour shifts, 7 days a week, for months on end doesn't leave time for golf.)

    21. Re:Precedent by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      ... well there are 4,400 sworn officers with 87 offices filled with god-knows how many employees. Statistically speaking, there's bound to be gamers amongst that group. And there's a chance that they play WoW. And if there's any sense of humor in this world I'd say that SOMEONE of that subset needs to start doing some virtual bodyguard service.

    22. Re:Precedent by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Until BHO admits he is an atheist, I don't know why Atheists think he is not, or worse, have two sets of rules one for "Magical Underwear" and one for Liberation Theology follower. Unless they think he is lying, which is probably worse. I'm always amused at Atheists who say they won't vote for a guy because of religion, then vote for another guy, ignoring his admitted religion. I find no logical consistency to this position.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    23. Re:Precedent by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Just remember not to base your decision on just what their hobby is. What if politician B's hobby consisted of building ever better computer controlled electric chairs for his pets?

    24. Re:Precedent by casca69 · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but I wouldn't take virtual gold... ;-)

    25. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      really! i'm thinking we need MORE of that action!

    26. Re:Precedent by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Damn this new lean and mean military. Didn't anybody consider that combining the roles of groundskeeper and C-5 pilot had a downside.

      How does keeping a golf course open slow down shipments?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    27. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there was a time when playing D&D labeled you a satanist or at least a practitioner of witchcraft, all of which garnered great fear from the mindless masses. now i'm just a geek with some weird dice. sigh.

    28. Re:Precedent by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      I'm always amused at Atheists who say they won't vote for a guy because of religion, then vote for another guy, ignoring his admitted religion. I find no logical consistency to this position.

      It's entirely logical, actually; I'll even describe how using a cliched phrase with small words so you might understand: sometimes you vote for the lesser evil.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    29. Re:Precedent by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    30. Re:Precedent by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Atheists don't believe in evil. Evil is subjective.

      And how does voting for evil fix anything? Might as well say "vote for the devil you know". Sad, really sad.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    31. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better?IF you have a better character, you can now Gank a sitting Senator, and not fear SS intervention!

      The Secret Service does not provide security services for Congress. Personal security for the legislators is the responsibility of the Senate and House Sergeants-at-Arms. They are independent of the DHS or DOJ.

    32. Re:Precedent by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2

      Atheists don't believe in evil.

      Bullshit. I'm an atheist, and I believe in evil. It may not be your version of "Evil" (so I agree with you on the subjective part). But then again, all morality is subjective.

      But I digress.

      And how does voting for evil fix anything?

      Voting for the lesser of two evils, as he said, does make a difference (inasmuch as any single vote can make a difference). Faced with a choice between two undesirable outcomes, you opt for the less undesirable one. This is basic rationality, here... not sure how you could be confused by it.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    33. Re:Precedent by Lithdren · · Score: 3

      Not that anyone will read this, but I feel it must be said.

      I would consider myself an 'Atheist' though im more agnostic, many people consider them one in the same. I also 'believe' in evil, whatever that means. Evil exists. Belief in a god isn't required to believe in evil.

      Drilling holes in a dogs head is evil, weather I believe i'll be going to hell or not for it. As for "Voting for the lesser evil" while that may not be the best choice, sometimes its the only real choice you have. That's not to say you need to agree with it, or that its the most logical choice, but there is something said about voting for someone purely so that the other guy doesn't get in.

      As ususal the universe isn't black and white, no matter how badly you wish it were.

    34. Re:Precedent by iONiUM · · Score: 2

      Why is a "full time job" not included in this? Working 8 hours was not the norm in the past, and shouldn't be now. Doing anything for so long is not healthy. It's a shame the world moves to this.

    35. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would consider myself an 'Atheist' though im more agnostic, many people consider them one in the same. I also 'believe' in evil, whatever that means. Evil exists. Belief in a god isn't required to believe in evil.

      But do you believe that morality is subjective? If not, you may as well believe in a god; believing in a magical entity that dictates morality isn't any better (and I can't think of a good explanation for absolute morality, either).

    36. Re:Precedent by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      Atheists don't believe in evil. Evil is subjective.

      Good = God minus an O
      Evil = Devil minus a D

      Are you also saying atheists don't believe in good?

      I don't need a god to teach me morality. I had no such explicit instruction growing up, and yet by actions (and inactions) alone I'm confident in saying I'm far more moral and ethical than the majority of those claiming they're guided by religious morality.

    37. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until BHO admits he is an atheist

      The butthurt is strong with this one...

    38. Re:Precedent by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      I'm another atheist who "believes in evil". Yes, I believe that morality is subjective. That's irrelevant, however, because all that means is that I am the entity dictating my own morality, not some mythical character. I recognize my own definition of "evil" as subjective, too, but nevertheless I do hold people and ideas to it, and I'm not shy of calling out evil things as evil.

    39. Re:Precedent by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference between the two is that Obama has not, so far, given any indication that his political positions are strongly guided by his religious views. Romney, on the other hand, seems to have that fanatical streak in him (but then Mormons tend to have more of it on average). I'm fine with a religious politician, even if I would prefer an atheist; I'm not fine with a zealot.

    40. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See Google for citation. You want me to wipe your azz for you too?

    41. Re:Precedent by idontgno · · Score: 2

      [Citation Needed.]

      Specifically, which base and which commander? (Actually, answering the first answers the second, so just cite the base involved.)

      I'm pretty sure MAC (the Air Force transport command at the of DS) had many bases supporting munitions airlift, and I doubt every single one has a golf course that (A) has potential to be affected by higher takeoff/landing tempo, and (B) was prioritized above increased ops tempo.

      And yes, if you wish to be snide about it, please, "LMGTFY" it. It'd still be an improvement above bare unsupported assertions, especially with something that sounds suspiciously like an urban legend. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but I'll settle for a google search.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    42. Re:Precedent by MartinSchou · · Score: 2

      Although... there is being a gamer, and then there is the person who has a gaming command center in their parents' basement with the delivery tube for the Mountain Dew and Cheetos.

      Would you consider Jay Leno or Jerry Seinfeld unfit for politics, because they have an obscene amount of cars and garage space?

      No? Then why would you think that of someone who has created a "gaming command centre"? I'm pretty sure Jay Leno has more than a delivery tube in his garage for instance. In fact, considering its size (both in area and amount of vehicles), I'd be surprised if he didn't at the very least have a fridge if not an actual kitchen.

      So, again - why is a "gaming command centre" worse than an extreme garage?

    43. Re:Precedent by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      You can go to hell, or you can go to hell in a handbasket. (forgive the "hell" reference) isn't much of a choice.

      That, and I don't know why you call false dichotomy a rational response, being a logical fallacy.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    44. Re:Precedent by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Drilling a hole in a dog's head isn't evil. Motivation is evil, actions are not. To relieve brain pressure due to hemorrhage is a valid reason to drill into a dog's skull.

      People do the wrong thing for the right reasons all the time.
      People do the right thing, for the wrong reasons all the time.

      Which is more "evil" ?? Gotta love moral relativism.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    45. Re:Precedent by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      So, the question is, who decides what is "evil" (subjective) for everyone else? Why is your moral position superior than say mine?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    46. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just remember not to base your decision on just what their hobby is. What if politician B's hobby consisted of building ever better computer controlled electric chairs for his pets?

      Ambiguous statement. Are the pets using the electric chairs on others (in which case, the pets are probably cats) or is the candidate using the electric chairs on his pets (in which case, I hope the pets are cats.)

    47. Re:Precedent by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      My moral position is "superior" to others', as far as I'm concerned, because it's mine - it's really as simple as that. "Superior" is not a right word in this context, anyway. I'm not claiming any sort of innate moral superiority. I just choose this particular position as a basis for my value judgments. I have to choose one to make them, and it makes sense to choose the one that I feel most comfortable with, don't you think?

      Your moral position is similarly "superior" to you, and I do account for that in my decision making (e.g. whenever I'll need to predict your reaction to something). But I'm certainly not going to change my own judgement based on what you think is wrong, just because you think that way (but, of course, you can try to convince me to change my position by giving me rational arguments against it).

    48. Re:Precedent by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      It isn't "morality" that you're complaining about. It is someone else's morality.

      Take for instance, killing unborn baby. Atheists have and do take both sides of the Abortion issue, who's morality is correct and why? No god, no holy book, no absolute. How are we to define what constitutes murder?

      Mother is full term, baby is not yet born. Is Abortion murder, or not. Why or why not? Because once you answer that question, I'll go one step further on either side (week old baby, 39 week pregnancy). Is killing a full term baby moral? Is allowing it to happen moral? Where does an Atheist draw the line on Morality and why?

      Who or what teaches you your "morality" in a situation like this? How is that better or worse than any other means of establishing morality? Your "moral superiority" is your morals compared to other's morals in your own eyes, what makes yours more superior? What should be the consequences to you when you violate your own moral code for an expedient outcome? Do you even have a moral code for that? If you don't is that even moral?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    49. Re:Precedent by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I would say, your moral position is "different" than others, not superior. Doesn't make it better or worse. What makes it better or worse is what happens when you violate your own moral code, and you repair that damage. Or do you just change your moral position to suit you at that moment, in which case that doesn't sound like a code, more like guidelines ;)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    50. Re:Precedent by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

      Old joke: Know why they call it "golf"? Because the word "shit" was taken.

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    51. Re:Precedent by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What makes it better or worse is what happens when you violate your own moral code, and you repair that damage. Or do you just change your moral position to suit you at that moment, in which case that doesn't sound like a code, more like guidelines ;)

      I think the more accurate gauge is how you feel yourself when that happens. Sometimes I do things that I don't really have any means of amending or even apologizing for (e.g. accidentally behaving rudely towards someone while driving on the highway). But I still know that I did wrong, and feel guilty about it - and that's how I know that it's actually part of my moral position.

      Anyway, that was my point - there is a huge difference between recognizing all morality as subjective and hence relative, and concluding that therefore none of it matters. For atheists in particular, the former is a natural outcome of the absence of gods or any other form of universal moral authority, but the latter is purely a matter of personal choice. No matter where the principles come from - Jesus, natural law, or one's own conscience - an individual has the ability to stick to them if he so decides.

      Now of course if you'd ask me to rationalize my moral position, that would be a different thing... I probably could for most points, but not all. But then I don't have to rationalize it to follow it (and for religious people, rationalizing it as "because it came from God" is really dodging the question, because the next one would then be "and why does it make it worthwhile?").

    52. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of a poem I wrote way back when I was in college and later elaborated into a song/verse structure along with a guitar part. Here's the first verse and chorus (In the full song I repeat that verse at the end changing 'David Blain' for 'Julian Assange' as the name used):

      If the devil's more than evil,
      Then god is less than good.
      David Blaine's the son of god,
      So nail him to some wood.

      It's so easy,
      To believe what you wanna believe.
      It's so easy,
      When you practice self-deceit.

      captcha: drunken (haha so true)

    53. Re:Precedent by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Probably not until roughly 900 years ago when firearms were invented.

    54. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good = God minus an O

      God minus an O would be "Gd". Seriously...

    55. Re:Precedent by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      The only people I have ever heard say "I will not vote for candidate X because of his religion" are religious people who follow a religion other than that of candidate X. Seriously, I have never heard any of my fellow atheists say any such thing (and a good thing, too, because otherwise we'd have a hard time finding anyone to vote for). In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'm going to guess that the "Atheists who say they won't vote for a guy because of religion, then vote for another guy, ignoring his admitted religion" exist only inside your own fevered imagination.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    56. Re:Precedent by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Atheists don't believe in evil.

      Wow, you are really beating the shit out of that strawman. Good for you, I guess. Any time you want to talk to some real atheists, let us know.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    57. Re:Precedent by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      Motivation is evil, actions are not.

      I disagree. There is a saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". I suppose true morality would require both good motivation and action. In the absence of that, give me someone who does the right thing for "bad" reasons over the "caring" asshole who screws you over every time.

    58. Re:Precedent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta love moral relativism.

      Why would you insult relativism based on that? It depends entirely on the person, so you'll have to ask them. One might not be more evil than the other, the first one might be more evil, or the second one might be more evil. I'm not really seeing the problem.

      Hell, even if you pretend that there are a correct set of morals, you still can't prove which ones are correct, so you're still forming an opinion about what is correct! You're in the same boat as moral relativists because you can't consult your probably nonexistent sky daddy for information.

    59. Re:Precedent by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      How are we to define what constitutes murder?

      How are you to define what constitutes murder? Can you contact whatever being it is that you believe dictates morality so you can find out?

      It seems obvious to me: whatever moral codes are most accepted will be the 'winners,' and laws will possibly be based on those moral codes. Abortion could be considered okay in one society, and wrong in another.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  7. Obligatory: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the Horde!

    1. Re:Obligatory: by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Even better, they should have used I'm a Medieval Man as her campaign song.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  8. Getting stupid... by Genda · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Change that... gotten stupid. In the mad rush to distinguish themselves and demonize the opponent, campaigning in this country has just gotten ridiculous. One of the reasons that Romney lost was that he kept saying things about Obama that simply weren't true. The problem supporting Romney became trying to figure out what was correct and what was just flaming bat guano. He destroyed his own credibility (well his campaign manager did it, but Romney let him.) Of course in past elections, the bull pucky would have stood, but so many people have ways of validating claims now and there were so many independent fact checkers this election that BS on both sides got shot down in record time.

    We live a diverse and interesting society. The fact that Conservatives want desperately to take the nation back to 40s is interesting but more than a little brain dead. By the way I distinguish social conservatives from fiscal conservatives. I'm talking about mostly Fundies, folks from smaller more agriculturally based communities, you know pretty much the entire middle of the country outside of big cities. If you look at the red and blue distribution, it should be clear. Maybe in a generation, the impact of technology will have stomped so hard on "Traditional Values" that it'l stop being the source of so much mischief in our society.

    1. Re:Getting stupid... by SirAstral · · Score: 2, Insightful

      careful slinging the guano around yourself... you get dirty too.

      As an independent I find that people like yourself are too busy talking trash about the other side than to notice the trash you and your side are spewing.

      Everyone should go and read George Washington's farewell address, he predicted the Civil War and our current state of affairs because people like you are to busy being what you are...

      Blind and Hypocritical.

      Both Sides lie, and 1 side is busy fooling you!

      If you voted Red or Blue then you are a part of the problem, not the solution.

    2. Re:Getting stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Playing fast-and-loose with the truth wasn't limited to Romney, but his campaign was the only one that got caught out on it.

    3. Re:Getting stupid... by Jeng · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think it is funny that the Republicans demonized an activity that over 30 million Americans take part in.

      http://www.vg247.com/2011/12/06/report-39-million-mmo-gamers-in-the-us-play-scifi-68-prefer-f2p/

      Then again around 80 million Americans have smoked pot and they demonize that also.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    4. Re:Getting stupid... by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

      I think it is funny that the Republicans demonized an activity that over 30 million Americans take part in.

      http://www.vg247.com/2011/12/06/report-39-million-mmo-gamers-in-the-us-play-scifi-68-prefer-f2p/

      Then again around 80 million Americans have smoked pot and they demonize that also.

      I think demonizing pot is a bipartisan thing.

    5. Re:Getting stupid... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      It's not taking back to the 40s that I have issue with. It's the apparent cognitive dissonance that the 40s were not a great time (end of a depression, a world war, etc). Neither were the 50s or 60s or 70s or 80s or 90s. Each decade had share of their own problems. Taking us back to one of them is a quick and shortsighted solution that time always marches forward.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re:Getting stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you voted Red or Blue then you are a part of the problem, not the solution.

      Except for my first two votes when I was 18 (congressional) and 20 (prez + etc), I'm proud to say that I've never voted anyone into office that worked tireless to eliminate my, or my neighbor's, rights. I chalked up my transgressions to being a stupid kid.

      The problem is that fear is instinctual while reason has to be learned with discipline. People are afraid to vote their hearts because they're afraid of the side that does the lesser job of fooling them. Since 2004, I haven't really heard of anyone say why they like their side's candidate other than saying the other side's candidate would bring about the end of days.

      As long as beer is cheap and TV is tawdry, we're not likely to see that change.

    7. Re:Getting stupid... by SirAstral · · Score: 2

      You are right, as long as beer is cheap and TV is tawdry so to speak the problem does not go away.

      People are stupid and ignorant and just like a patient dying of cancer or cholesterol they would rather die than to put down that double bacon bacon extra cheesy melty burger.

      Rare insight in the most obscene of places tends to reveal our true natures..

      "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves"

      T2

    8. Re:Getting stupid... by Jeng · · Score: 2

      I think demonizing pot is a bipartisan thing.

      True, and once they finally get it though their thick skulls that the public is ready for pot to be legalized then legalization will also be a bipartisan thing.

      My family, that I was not raised anywhere near, are very conservative and even they say it should be legalized.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    9. Re:Getting stupid... by meerling · · Score: 2

      Let's accept that even if you hate all the candidates, you still find one slightly less deplorable than the other.
      Not everyone agrees with your analysis.
      It's possible either candidate could win, even the worst of a bad lot, they just need more supporters in key locations.

      If you don't vote, you make their votes MORE powerful/valuable.
      If you do vote, you dilute the impact of their choice, and may be enough to sway the course away from the worst choice.

      There are serious issues with our current political system, but it you don't participate, you are making yourself the minion of those who win.

    10. Re:Getting stupid... by Americano · · Score: 1

      . In the mad rush to distinguish themselves and demonize the opponent

      Given the tone and content of your post, I find this comment deliciously ironic.

      You could have saved a lot of typing if you had just said, "I'm appalled that people are still allowed to disagree with and criticize my candidate." It would've been a lot shorter, too. It's completely disingenuous to give "your guys" a free pass for spin while blasting "those other guys" for doing it.

    11. Re:Getting stupid... by SirAstral · · Score: 1

      So you imply that not voting for a red/blue is the same as not voting at all?

      Not sure what you are saying.

      Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is not enough to get me to vote for that person rather than an alternative candidate.

    12. Re:Getting stupid... by DrgnDancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The 50's were, assuming you were a white male of at least the "skilled working class" level of society, a great time. By feat of chance there was a conjunction of postwar prosperity, an entrepreneurial boom, and a government willing to invest in big things. It was a time when a man could, with a high school education, get a good job and support a family with a single income. For a good chunk of America it was a real golden age. It was also a time of tremendous racism, Cold War, and overt sexism, but those parts don't bother a lot of the more outer fringe of the right wing. There's several problems with trying to return to the 50's though.

      First, the circumstances that created the incredible boom were not exactly pleasant. A good chunk of the reason for the insatiable consumer demand of the time was that the preceding decade and half had been dominated by war and depression... Eight years of not being able to afford anything followed by six years of not being able to get anything leaves people in the mood to spend. On top of that, the War had resulted in the creation or refinement of all kinds of new technology that people wanted to buy. People had money, both because they'd been saving during the War (when there was nothing to spend on), and because the boom created tons of jobs for them to come home to. It was a perfect storm of incredible pent up demand coinciding with equally incredible new products.

      Second, and this is a real pisser, the government was a huge driver of the economy with spending in the 50's. Conservatives recall the social conservatism of the era, but for get the fact that government was a lot less afraid to spend money. Things like the Apollo project and the Interstate Highway project were hugely expensive government programs that employed tens or hundreds of thousands and pumped tons of money into suppliers and ancillary businesses. Sure, these were primarily Cold War defense or prestige projects, not "entitlement spending", but they were huge wealth redistribution engines regardless. They put a lot of money in the hands of working people.

      We can't policy our way back to the 50's, they were a unique time with a unique set of very advantageous circumstances. Certainly we can't let our blinders tell us that all we gotta do is throw the women back in the kitchen, the gays back in the closet, and blacks back in the ghetto to bring them back. Those were the downsides of the 50's not the cause of the upsides. We can, perhaps, try to bring back some of the big government projects that helped drive the economy, but we'll need more tax revenue to do it (taxes were considerably higher by percentage in the 50's), and even with that we won't be able to manufacture the kind of boom caused by postwar euphoria and pent up demand. Looking to the past for inspiration to solve problems is one thing, but you can't ever bring it back.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    13. Re:Getting stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem supporting Romney became trying to figure out what was correct and what was just flaming bat guano.

      Nah. That wasn't a problem for long; it was quickly obvious that it was all flaming bullshit. The problem was convincing yourself it wasn't, because it lacked that critical suspension-of-disbelief. And that was just because Romney was completely out of touch .. not just with normal people, but with reality in general.

    14. Re:Getting stupid... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      My family, that I was not raised anywhere near, are very conservative and even they say it should be legalized.

      Things are finally changing. In 1968 about 12% of Americans were for legalization, today it's a little more than 50%.

      What surprises me is that the Republicans say they're for states' rights, how can they say that now when two states just legalized recreational pot use? If they were really for states' rights they would be pushing to abolish federal anti-pot laws. Instead, they'll send in the feds to bust people for doing something that's perfectly legal in that state.

      Hypocrites all.

    15. Re:Getting stupid... by aczisny · · Score: 1

      taxes were considerably higher by percentage in the 50's

      Taxes were higher but but revenue was the same.

      --
      Now, landing thrusters.. landing thrusters, hmm. Now if I were a landing thruster, which one of these would I be?
    16. Re:Getting stupid... by Ogive17 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a leader to my post, I voted for Obama yesterday.

      I live in a smaller, partial agriculturally based community that happens to be sort of in the middle of the country (Ohio) where the vote was about 65% Romney yesterday.

      Have you ever stopped to think why people in smaller communities tend to vote Republican over and over? Instead of thumbing your nose, which is what I took the last portion of your post as, as those of us in fly-over country maybe you should stop and walk a few miles in our shoes.

      Cost of living is cheap so it does not take large salaries to live out a decent life. People are typically respectful of others and helpful to those in need. The % of people who continuously rely on the gov't to help them out is much smaller than in larger cities. Life is simple and people enjoy that.

      Despite what the Republican party has said or done recently, the people in these communities have always been against big gov't. We'd rather do it ourselves.

      So spare us the lecture on what YOU think drives the people in this region. Sure, some of it is silly to me but a lot is rooted in the "just let me live my life" mode of thinking. And are "Traditional Values" always a bad thing?

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    17. Re:Getting stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very well done, the same points that I think about and wish I was there.
      Thanks

    18. Re:Getting stupid... by Quila · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Then again tens of millions of Americans run successful businesses, and the Democrats demonize them. Those couple million in the top 1% are absolutely evil and must be punished.

    19. Re:Getting stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you voted Red or Blue then you are a part of the problem, not the solution.

      Hi there. Another "Independent" AC here. I voted Red, Blue, and Independent in the election. Actually, I voted colorblind, focusing on the candidates and issues, not what color they happened to be. The fact you are saying "Red or Blue" being a "a part of the problem" indicates you are truly not "Independent", only somebody who does not believe in being "Red or Blue". You sir/madam, are part of the problem!

      Cheers.

    20. Re:Getting stupid... by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      The fact that Conservatives want desperately to take the nation back to 40s is interesting but more than a little brain dead. By the way I distinguish social conservatives from fiscal conservatives.

      Stop calling them social conservatives as they are actually social regressives.

    21. Re:Getting stupid... by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      Good points, but even the 50s were an economic roller coaster. Except for the Great Depression, people tend to forget the economic lows after a couple of decades unless they lost their job during one. In addition to everyone other than white males suffering, most people who shared views out of alignment with the era's "traditional values" in any way were mistreated. One of the persecutionists eventually occupied the White House. Not that I'd return the percent of GDP spent on infrastructure to 1950s levels, but it has been terribly low recently and you're right, such spending employs people, redistributes income, and generally pumps up economic activity to the benefit of, well, most.

      There's also been significant revision of how people felt at the time. People who weren't alive then remember the 50s from Happy Days and Grease and other nostalgic shows. I'm serious. Apparently there was no pollution, no child abuse, no cancer, no serious accidents, no infidelity, no drug abuse, no workplace problems, no mental illness, and nothing else bad that we realize always did happen to WASPs as well as anyone else. I guess Rizzo's boyfriend was worried about pregnancy, but even that didn't occur.

      I'm personally more likely to be revisionist about the 60s, but it's hard to ignore that people died in Vietnam and in the struggles for civil rights.

      I know, let's go back to the 20s! Nobody's around now to tell us we have it wrong! Everybody had fun in speakeasies and the Great War was over and the stock market was soaring and we drove around everywhere in automobiles and listened to riveting shows on radio!

    22. Re:Getting stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be nice living in a fantasy world, unlike us poor folks who have to consider the consequences of or actions.

    23. Re:Getting stupid... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      I voted based en economic history of the US, Current recovery compared to other countries and similar events, and what economics have a history of providing the best services for the people while allowing the people to live there life..

      It's not my fault if the party backing that happens to be blue.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    24. Re:Getting stupid... by geekoid · · Score: 1, Insightful

      People aren't stupid. You don't becomes a species that builds rockets, goes to the moon, and send probes outside our Solar System by being a race mostly of stupid people.

      Distracted? yes. Under-educated? Yes. Manipulated through wide spread media manipulation? Yes.

      Not stupid. Those problems can be addressed and leveled, stupid can not.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    25. Re:Getting stupid... by rhsanborn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/12/us/entitlement-map.html?ref=us

      I've seen a few maps that show that there are considerably higher number of government aid recipients in areas that tend to lean red.

      Further, I take offense to the idea that these people would rather "do it themselves". It sounds a lot more like "I got mine, so don't tax me to get yours". Those people got public education. Many went to colleges that received up to 70-80% of their operating funds from the state (most now receive closer to 15%). Public infrastructure was built in a very short time. Many of these individuals are receiving social security and medicare, something "they paid into and deserve" but they don't want to take any cuts or pay any higher taxes to make sure these programs remain solvent for the next generation who are also paying into it. They got to take advantage of the fact that hospitals would treat them even if they couldn't afford the bill, something the state picks up the cost for.

      I understand trying to make sure these programs are run efficiently. But, the debate in the last 1-2 years has been a lot more about cutting than reforming. And a lot more about making sure our historically low taxes are never raised to pay for the things the baby boomers have already taken advantage of.

    26. Re:Getting stupid... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I just lie to remind people that the tax rate in the 50s for the 1% is 50+%.

      So, yeah lets return to those tax days, becasue that money allowed us to create great things, start entire industry's, good education. and improve the world as a whole.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    27. Re:Getting stupid... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That's not better. Just so you know.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    28. Re:Getting stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I had mod points - thank you for highlighting that entitlement map.

    29. Re:Getting stupid... by citylivin · · Score: 2

      The thing I don't get about this line of reasoning is that republicans in the USA are MORE big government than anyone! They start wars, encourage wasteful spending by getting the private sector to do their job (for a profit, which can only increase costs, DUH), cut taxes/services forcing more burdens onto the individual, etc.

      That is why I think its all a sort of cultural brainwashing, mixed with racism and lack of diversity. I am not from the USA, however i see the same things in rural areas in my country. If you live in a city, you actually have to coexist with more people around you, so it forces people to be more civil to one another and respect each others space and values. (for instance my asian neighbours who cook the stinkiest fish imaginable every single god damn day), however I have no choice but to put up with it really, so you gain a kind of acceptance. If I was in the country, I would simply burn a cross on their lawn or something to try and get them to leave. You cant burn crosses on everyones lawn in the city. First off, most people do not have lawns.

      So you are stuck with accepting them and realizing that you probably piss off people around you too. In short, density makes people more civil I find. You cant start fights with everyone in your apartment building that annoys you. There would simply be no time for anything but fighting.

      I would think in rural areas you need to rely on the government MORE, per capita. The government pays a premium to support your infrastructure out in the middle of nowhere. The government pays to have doctors stationed out there (ok maybe not in the USA but, in other countries this is true). They pay to upkeep roads which are used less than the cities. Government run power companies pay more to provide services out there, again less users per sq km costs more. Laws mandate that greyhound and other bus companies must go to these far flung places, instead of just dropping them and disconnecting the communities.

      I don't think the idea of a sensible level of government has anything in conflict with a self sufficient attitude. There are some things that it is impossible to DIY, DIY healthcare, DIY highway systems, DIY firefighting and police (enforcement of sensible laws), DIY mail service, DIY internet. Americans seem to have defunded their government services over the years, and then complain about shoddy service. Its a really annoying cognitive dissonance not found in many other countries. Most people expect that you get what you pay for, and government services are no exception.

      So in short, its great to be as self sufficient as possible however no man is an island, and I would rather have well run and well funded governement programs when I do need them, then underfunded and non existent programs. Even if 99% of the time I dont need hospital care, I still will pay to have that hospital properly funded because of that 1% of times when you really do need it.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    30. Re:Getting stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in a smaller, partial agriculturally based community.... The % of people who continuously rely on the gov't to help them out is much smaller than in larger cities

      In an agricultural community?!? The entire industry is propped up by government support. Farm subsidies may not carry the same social stigma as a welfare check, but that doesn't mean your town is any less dependent on wealthier communities.

    31. Re:Getting stupid... by HungWeiLo · · Score: 2

      Your roads and your electrical / water / utility grids are subsidized at a much higher rate per capita than urban areas. Your low cost of living is a direct result of tax dollars paying to deliver all modern conveniences and energy sources to your community - again at a much higher per capita rate than urban areas. Private companies refused to electrify rural areas as they could not recoup their investments. The postal service delivers mail and packages to/fro your community at a loss that is made up by urban dwellers. I could go on and on here...

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    32. Re:Getting stupid... by SirAstral · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately you are wrong. We sit on the shoulders of Giants, and regardless of where you go there is a tyrant with an army of stupid people working for them.

      People are stupid... do they have to be? No they don't. Does this also mean that we can't build rockets and make it to the moon? Of course not. You are providing exceptions, and that is a bad use case for disproving a rule.

      The question is begged.... If people are not as stupid as I claim, then why are there so many wars, despots, tyrants, and marks of destruction on our planet all throughout history? Tell me how we are not stupid? And don't use exceptions to do it!

    33. Re:Getting stupid... by SirAstral · · Score: 1

      One might say that you do not know your history very well.

      Go look up the fall of Argentina. We are doing what they did that made them fall. Greece is the same.

      You seem to have rose colored glasses when looking at foreign countries while wearing blood stained glasses looking at the US.

    34. Re:Getting stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      taxes were considerably higher by percentage in the 50's

      Taxes were higher but but revenue was the same.

      So not only were the taxes on the rich higher, but the taxes on the non-rich were lower... I'm not sure that statement actually refutes his claim.

    35. Re:Getting stupid... by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      I would say some of that has to do with aging populations. It's no secret that younger people tend to flock to bigger cites. I was about to transfer to LA but my wife got pregnant and now I want to stay in my hometown for at least a few years because my family is all here and my wife's family is in Japan.

      It's not the taxes people mind, it's where the tax money goes. Local levies for improvements/schools almost always get approved. What people tend to resent is a large chunk of money going to the federal government where there is very little that can be done to direct how it is used.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    36. Re:Getting stupid... by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Ahh yes, let's all move to the big city and become bankers and lawyers. That will do wonders for the economy.

      The agricultural and industrial base of the country is in the red states, for the most part. Big companies continue to look for cheap land/labor to expand operations. This helps accelerate urban sprawl.

      I'm not saying it's the best way, it's just what happens.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    37. Re:Getting stupid... by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      I don't know what to say. My neighbors and I talk quite frequently, even if we're not always crossing paths. When the weather is nice we'll meet up on the corner and talk until the mosquitoes get too annoying and chase us all back inside. We watch out for each others' homes, help out with yardwork for the more elderly neighbors, and enjoy building personal relationships that tend to last for decades.

      As for racism, it exists, no denying it. But it can be experienced in big cities too. Sure, there's a lack of diversity in my town, I think it's about 85% white. I'm in an inter-racial marriage as are two of my good friends. What I've noticed is that foreigners will get treated differently mainly because people try too hard to seem welcoming. Different cultures are a mystery, so people don't always know how to act. It's no different from when I visit my wife's hometown in Japan.

      The general sentiment is people want a stronger local gov't and less of the tax money going towards the federal gov't. Right, wrong or indifferent, it's not the amount of taxes being paid but where they are getting paid.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    38. Re:Getting stupid... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      One might say that you do not know your history very well.

      Go look up the fall of Argentina. We are doing what they did that made them fall. Greece is the same.

      If you honestly think that the current policies of the US government are in any way comparable to those of either Greece or Argentina, you are too ignorant to have a meaningful opinion on the matter.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    39. Re:Getting stupid... by hairyfish · · Score: 1

      And are "Traditional Values" always a bad thing?

      Depends on what this actually means? In politics I've seen it mostly mean that minorities shouldn't be allowed the same privileges as white men, or that we should enact the Christian equivalent of Sharia law. This is why I prefer progressive values over traditional ones. Because it means we take the latest and most accurate information into account too, not simply what some primitive middle eastern farmers believed 2000 years ago.

    40. Re:Getting stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most Republicans I've talked to are not for States Rights. They don't even claim to be. They love a strong Central Authoritarian system as much as Democrats do, they just want it to behave slightly differently than Democrats do. The few Republicans who beat the "States Rights" drum are often thrown under the bus and called "the lunatic fringe", often compared to neo-confederates (implying racism where there is none) as if favoring the ability of people to have any amount of autonomous control over their state legislature is akin to the return of "Jim Crow".

      The reality is that "States Rights" are what has brought us gay marriage, medical pot, hold ups in Bush's "Realid" and so on (all fairly Liberal causes), so it doesn't make much sense at all when Liberals (tm) dog the idea. They often look at things like the "Arizona immigration law" as an example of failure of concept, but the Arizona Immigration law does not fall under state's rights, because it is not authorized by the constitution for states to regulate immigration issues, any more than it would be for California to declare war on Liechtenstein. The idea behind States Rights is not that States can do whatever they want/violate your rights, but that they are a balancing force from the Federal level and often a very good first step in reforming Federal law (such as in the case of gay marriage).

      Strange universe this America lives in, isn't it?

    41. Re:Getting stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you inferring that people who live in rural areas are wealthier than people who live in the city? It costs quite a bit less to live in the sticks, but jobs out in the sticks also pay less on average or you have to drive with the high cost of gas to where jobs pay more.

      I think the OP has the right idea, and to recognize that doesn't mean you are wanting to throw everyone off of welfare or even that one has "got mine". People in those communities tend to value the local. They like to shop local, and they like to deal with people they know on a first name basis. This is generally the same type of people who oppose big shopping centers and tourist traps being built in their back yards. It's just a different mindset than city living. I have done BOTH, and either have their strengths and weaknesses. People move to the city if they want to live on the fast track. People move to the country if they want to live a quiet tranquil life. Psychologically, to a lot of people in rural areas, you can't look a faceless bureaucracy in the eye to see if you can trust them like you can someone in your local community.

      This is not an argument for or against any policy or political ideology, but the way big city Liberals condescend against rural people is not only smug, but highly inaccurate, and often based on the fact that they've never actually lived in such a setting. Now, there are very negative things about rural living as well (gossip, social conservatism) but it is what it is, and what you said isn't it.

    42. Re:Getting stupid... by rhsanborn · · Score: 1

      No, the map I put up shows that the rural folks tend to receive proportionally higher federal assistance and funds than do people in denser, more highly populated areas.

    43. Re:Getting stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this particular election, the Republican side was trying to make the Democratic candidate seem unfit for office, using playing World of Warcraft as one of the avenues of attack. I didn't follow the rest of election, so the rest of the criticisms made might be valid and seen as not demonizing.

      However!

      It sure seems like demonizing when one claims that the opposition is violent because of playing a video game that involves fictional violence. It sure seems like demonizing when one starts to grasp at straws to attack a candidate when one can easily find more valid criticisms.

      That's like saying Obama is a bad president because he wears a red tie and the devil is red in color. There are dozens of legitimate criticisms, such as double-tapping with drone strikes. Instead, the weak strawman is thrown in.

      When one starts making criticisms as trite as that to question another's character, it sure seems like demonizing.

    44. Re:Getting stupid... by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      The map you posted included stuff like medicare and medicaid. I simply stated that the higher rates could be due to a higher average age for rural areas.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    45. Re:Getting stupid... by rhsanborn · · Score: 1

      You can select different government programs. It doesn't change much.

  9. LFM: Bill Sponsorship by Zephyn · · Score: 4, Funny

    If she's ever successfully put together a 25-player raiding group, building a consensus of 18+ in the Maine Senate might not be that difficult of a transition.

    Getting the other senators to understand a Suicide Kings style of vote management might be a bit trickier, though.

    1. Re:LFM: Bill Sponsorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If she's ever successfully survived a 25-man Looking For Raid group, that'd be easier than getting 18 politicians to agree on something.

    2. Re:LFM: Bill Sponsorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually i would be more impressed if she was one of the old school raiders. Anyone who successfully lead a 40 man raid through MC or BWL pre expansions has my vote. If you are successfully able to motivate 40 heavily caffeinated, ADDHD people and keep their attention for 6 + hours at a time to achieve a single goal i don't think the senate would be that much of an issue. It was like herding cats in a mine field.

      WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE LOOT THIS FUCKING CORE HOUND ......

      Sorry flash back...

    3. Re:LFM: Bill Sponsorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who pulled the surger with the core hound? I think a hunter did but he's dead now.

  10. If Blizzard would be so kind... by Nexion · · Score: 1

    ...please make an in game avatar dead on the ground somewhere so Santiaga can viciously v-bag it repeatedly.

  11. Looking at the postcard by TheFakeMcCoy · · Score: 2

    While some of the comments may not be the best thing in a political arena, there's a lot worse things that I have seen people say or post out in the wild. Also points down for the other candidates advertising committee for stating DPS stands for deaths per second. If you are going to criticize someone on their comments at least know what they are referring to.

  12. $6300, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm stuck on the contributions here, help me out.

    Receiving $6,300 from a bunch of WoW players receives challenge.
    Receiving $11mil from a super PAC goes unchallenged (and undisclosed for the most part).

    What's going on here? The solution to corruption seems to be "more corruption".

    1. Re:$6300, really? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      The people with $11 million dollars can afford the lawyers to kill time in court and outlive their opponents, so no one even tries.

  13. Politicians by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Politician's need to learn about the Streisand effect. Had they never attacked her for playing world of world craft I'd of known nothing about her or even much cared. I'm sure this is true also for younger people in her state.

    When they decide to attack her on this front they pretty much mobilized a larger portion of the young voter demographic for her than she would of otherwise gotten. Even though she herself brought it up the decision to attack her on this front brought it from being an irrelevant and kinda amusing factoid to front page news on many sites and news sources.

    1. Re:Politicians by Dyinobal · · Score: 1

      Actually it isn't the streisand effect, but it is an effect I just don't have a name for it.

    2. Re:Politicians by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Politician's need to learn about the Streisand effect.

      Let the fools look foolish, perhaps they'll change their behavior.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    3. Re:Politicians by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      That really was the case in this race. Apparently MMORPG players around the world got outraged and donated almost $200K to her campaign. That's just crazy money for a state senate race.

    4. Re:Politicians by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      When they decide to attack her on this front they pretty much mobilized a larger portion of the young voter demographic for her than she would of otherwise gotten.

      [[Citation needed]]

      Seriously, while this sounds "obviously true" to the /, demographic, the Streisand Effect has much less effect in real life than the amount it gets slung around on Slashdot might lead you to think. Especially since this emphatically isn't an example of the Effect - which is the backlash that (sometimes) occurs when someone actively tries to suppress information.

      So numbers or proof please.

    5. Re:Politicians by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Blowback? I have no idea how well that fits, but I like whispering that word to myself.

    6. Re:Politicians by Dyinobal · · Score: 2

      Ya I already said that I mistakenly called this the Streisand effect, it was early in the morning for me and I'd not had my Tea. Also I'd say the donation numbers are a good indicator that drawing attention to her world of warcraft ties was a bad idea.

    7. Re:Politicians by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Politician's need to learn about the Streisand effect.

      Politician's what need to learn? Their staffs? Their wives? Their constituents who seem to have never read a book?

    8. Re:Politicians by idontgno · · Score: 1

      What? Are you saying the fools will realize how foolish they are and become wiser?

      It doesn't work like that.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    9. Re:Politicians by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Well, if they don't get wiser they'll get louder and that will help us see their foolishness.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    10. Re:Politicians by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Politician's need to learn about the Streisand effect."

      I MUCH prefer otherwise. Who wants a smart enemy?

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  14. A Nice Change of Pace... by SirAstral · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I for one actually like the idea of a game player making it into office, regardless of their political affiliation.

    People seem to forget that most people running for office are too busy to be down to earth or able to understand the common person. Once you get rich and powerful reality does not hang around for long unless you make a concious effort to keep it there.

    1. Re:A Nice Change of Pace... by Jeng · · Score: 2

      Also co-operation is a requirement of playing these games.

      You aren't some lone guy with a gun like with fps's, instead you are one of many in a group handling a specialized task trying to achieve a shared goal.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:A Nice Change of Pace... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one actually like the idea of a game player making it into office, regardless of their political affiliation.

      Yeah, Democrat or Republican doesn't really matter. Now had she been a part of the Alliance, then we'd have had something to talk about.

      FOR THE HORDE!!

    3. Re:A Nice Change of Pace... by scot4875 · · Score: 2

      Something I always found interesting, and this may just be confirmation bias, but I've noticed that people who played as Alliance characters really didn't give a shit, but people who played as Horde seemed to take their faction choice seriously and even wore it as a point of pride.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
  15. Voting in virtual worlds by concealment · · Score: 1

    Maybe we should recognize that virtual worlds are second homes to many people, and often are preferred to everyday life. Should we set up voting booths in virtual worlds, and let people transition entirely to the digital worlds? It's not like they're going to miss out on anything by not physically standing in line for seven hours.

    1. Re:Voting in virtual worlds by Applekid · · Score: 1

      I can see it now.

      "It's great to be able to vote here in Second Life!"
      "I agree! And isn't the penis skyscape lovely today?"

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    2. Re:Voting in virtual worlds by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Should we set up voting booths in virtual worlds, and let people transition entirely to the digital worlds

      Wrong order, the only reason to put up "voting booths" in a virtual world is if the people in the virtual world are unable to go back to the physical world.

      So at some point in the future when a person is able to transition entirely to a digital world there may be a need to set up voting booths in said virtual world.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    3. Re:Voting in virtual worlds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a read of the short story "To Hie from Far Cilenia" by Karl Schroeder to understand what happens when people opt out of RL and participate in virtual worlds/alternative reality games/etc. It's seriously scary and potentially world shattering

  16. A better metaphor... by concealment · · Score: 1

    penis skyscape

    A better metaphor for American politics would be hard to find.

  17. if nobody else got caught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if nobody else got caught, how do you know anyone else was doing it?

    hope and pray?

    1. Re:if nobody else got caught by Americano · · Score: 1

      We know because plenty of people got caught doing it on both sides. If you're not being willfully obtuse, you could have started reading here for some information on Democrat "spin": FactCheck.org

    2. Re:if nobody else got caught by tragedy · · Score: 1

      The post you replied to was replying to a post that said:

      Playing fast-and-loose with the truth wasn't limited to Romney, but his campaign was the only one that got caught out on it.

      I really wish people would try to read and respond to comments in threaded conversations in context.

    3. Re:if nobody else got caught by geekoid · · Score: 1

      But it's not balanced. Obama said a few, mostly he corrected later. And there was some non responses, as per politics. however Romney had 100's and 100's of direct lies. Lies he then lied about and got called out.
      The man lives in a delusion bubble, and when in the public he got called on it. But then, this is the guy how doesn't care about facts.\ becasue he believes his beliefs are real in spite of the facts.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:if nobody else got caught by Americano · · Score: 1

      GP said, "His campaign was the only one that got caught out on it."
      Parent said, "if nobody else got caught, how do you know anyone else was doing it?"
      I responded and said, "Plenty of others were caught doing it, and here's some examples."

      What context am I missing? Both of the posts above mine were incorrect on different points - GP that "nobody got caught on it" (clearly, they were), and the obtuse "how do you know anybody else got caught" question is trivially addressed by citing examples of... people getting caught doing it from the "non-Romney" side of the aisle.

    5. Re:if nobody else got caught by Americano · · Score: 1

      A lie from either side is unacceptable. Don't try to whitewash bad behavior by citing more egregious examples of bad behavior from someone else.

      "Sure, rape is bad, but look at this guy - he MURDERED people!"

    6. Re:if nobody else got caught by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lie from either side is unacceptable. Don't try to whitewash bad behavior by citing more egregious examples of bad behavior from someone else.

      "Sure, rape is bad, but look at this guy - he MURDERED people!"

      So if I prove the government of Britain executed an innocent during the period from 1920-1945, that makes them the moral equivalent of Stalin? It would certainly make them bad, but not equally bad.

      If you are honestly saying that a person who says 1000 things a week, with 10 of them inaccurate deserves the same response as someone who says 1000 things a week with 500 of them inaccurate, I think you are incorrect.

      (Note-I have no statistics on whether Romney or Obama lied more, or whether Britain or Russia killed more innocent people. It is the logic of, "doing it once is the equivalent of doing it habitually" I have issue with.)

    7. Re:if nobody else got caught by tragedy · · Score: 1

      The context you missed is that the post you responded to was a rhetorical question addressing a logical inconsistency in the previous post. Responding that people on both sides were caught doing it doesn't resolve the paradox the original poster presented.

    8. Re:if nobody else got caught by Americano · · Score: 1

      If you are honestly saying

      You should probably go back and actually read what I wrote. Also maybe look up the meaning of "more egregious examples of bad behavior," since my use of that phrase was very specific and very much refutes the entirety of your argument.

      I am HONESTLY saying that whitewashing bad behavior on the part of "your" guy by saying "but that OTHER guy did way worse," does not, in any way, exonerate your guy, or excuse his bad behavior. Bad behavior is bad behavior. It's not "okay because the other guy did it more."

      I am HONESTLY saying that willful deception is unacceptable from EITHER candidate or their supporters.

      It is the logic of, "doing it once is the equivalent of doing it habitually" I have issue with.

      Of course. Because "your guy" "maybe" did it "just the once, just by accident, and totally felt bad about it the next day, if he did, which I'm pretty sure he probably didn't, or didn't mean to, at least."

    9. Re:if nobody else got caught by Americano · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see - you assumed it was a rhetorical question. Thanks for your pointless pedantic input - did you have anything of substance to add? Or did you just want to make sure that we all knew you read the question differently?

      Responding that people on both sides were caught doing it doesn't resolve the paradox the original poster presented.

      Um. It most certainly does - it says "this paradox you're trying to argue about is non-existent - both parties did it, and both parties were caught out on it." I'm sorry I cannot respond to BOTH posts directly with a single comment, next time I'll try and hold your hand through this sort of traumatic experience.

    10. Re:if nobody else got caught by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Ok. Clearly I have to go through this slowly and step by step.
      First, we have:

      Playing fast-and-loose with the truth wasn't limited to Romney, but his campaign was the only one that got caught out on it.

      This should be fairly self-evidently a paradox. At least, either a paradox, or a statement from someone with special knowledge beyond that available to the general public. It's a safe bet to stick with a paradox until the original AC says otherwise.

      Then, someone replies to that with:

      if nobody else got caught, how do you know anyone else was doing it?

      Pointing out the paradox and asking the original AC to address it.

      Then, you come in, letting it whoosh over your head and respond:

      We know because plenty of people got caught doing it on both sides. If you're not being willfully obtuse, you could have started reading here for some information on Democrat "spin": FactCheck.org [factcheck.org]

      Now, here you're clearly missing the point. The AC you're replying to wasn't making any claims about whether or not both sides were doing it, they were addressing the logical paradox in the original post. Telling that that both sides were, in fact, caught out doing it doesn't somehow make the person pointing out the logical paradox wrong. The paradox in the original statement is still there, and the original AC who posted it hasn't responded to say "oops, I was wrong, both sides were caught out on it". You posting to say that the first AC was wrong doesn't somehow make the second AC wrong. The second AC is still right that there's a logical inconsistency in the post from the first AC.

      I hope you learn that being intolerably smug in your ignorance doesn't make you better than those around you. When you completely miss the point, try to look back and just admit that you misread the context.

  18. Mess with PBS or WoW. Die like the Rest. by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Now, if you'll excuse me, my panda has to get back to farming.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  19. From one elected representative to another... by Wizard+Drongo · · Score: 2

    Well done, and congratulations to her. Disgusting scare tactics and gutter politics are offensive, and it's good to see positivity win for a change.

    --
    The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
  20. "Now watch this drive..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hehe...

  21. How is that a strategy? by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 2

    Your a member of the GOP and your trying to win your local election but then you have the GOP sabotaging all your efforts.
    Why would you join that party? I've dropped out just because the tank was too lightly geared. But at least he wasn't pushing aggro on the healer.

    --
    Sig. Sig. Sputnik
  22. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She gets recognition just because she plays WOW? Talk about pandering to a specific target audience with this story no matter how pointless it is.

    Hate to break it to everyone, but her playing WOW doesnt make her a better person or a better politician. Of course nerds will love the news because it somehow lets them validate their gaming habits as noteworthy or cool just because a politician plays it also.

    I play WOW and I couldnt give a shit if she plays and won or not because it doesnt matter even in the tiniest possible way.

    1. Re:So what? by DrgnDancer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, she gets recognition because she won her election after her opponent tried to use her WoW playing against her. Given that most of us here have played games at one point or another, it annoys us when some tries to imply that doing so is disqualification for "important" jobs. It's vindicating that the voters did not agree. It's true that her playing WoW doesn't make her a better person of a better politician, but it the point is that it doesn't inherently make her a worse person or politician.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    2. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the point, it doesn't matter if she plays or not. People got angry and supported her when the opposite side attacked her for playing WoW as it would make somebody unfit for office.

    3. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to break it to everyone, but her playing WOW doesnt make her a better person or a better politician. Of course nerds will love the news because it somehow lets them validate their gaming habits as noteworthy or cool just because a politician plays it also.

      You're not breaking anything to anyone. You're just knocking over strawmen so that you can pretend you're the only cool kid on a playground full of nerds.

  23. The real story being... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Funny

    That Blizzard nerfed the rogue class so much for MoP, that her time was better spent running for public office.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    1. Re:The real story being... by Mr+Krinkle · · Score: 2

      That Blizzard nerfed the rogue class so much for MoP, that her time was better spent running for public office.

      I just assumed that her character had been so nerfed, she figured the only way to get it back was to run for office, and legislate the other classes down to restore rogue to top tier.

      --
      I am 31337 or something.
  24. Nickname? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They just call it "the blow" for short.

  25. What people do for Achievement Titles... by Brewster+Jennings · · Score: 2

    I could have camped the 25th District, but I heard the drops suck.

  26. Shocking revelation by letherial · · Score: 1

    Someone who runs for office happens to play something that is easily available to the public. I might be jumping the gun here, but this huge revelation can only mean one thing:

    It is the end of the world

    of Warcraft.

  27. WTF guys? by Loopy · · Score: 1

    My friends and family have pretty much all been avid gamers since the Atari days. What in the 7th level of hell does that have to do with anything other than gaming?

    While I wouldn't vote for a Democrat on general principle, I fail to see how her playing WoW is a detriment. I'd go further and suggest that it gives her a feel for how normal people tend to use the internet and means she's probably more in touch than the average government denizen.

    1. Re:WTF guys? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      The evangelicals have a hard-on about any depiction of magic, even fictional. There's a video on YouTube you can probably find with a clip from one of those religious networks and they are going on about the evils of My Little Pony because it depicts magical unicorns. It's the same with the D&D hubbub decades ago, or Harry Potter more recently.

      Conjecture here, but I don't think they feel unicorns and wizards are true, but they feel that evil is real, in the form of the Devil or whatever, and that the lure of magic, real or not, is being used to turn kids away from God and toward nefarious ends and they wind up on crack or masturbating to rule 34 ponies or something.

      Not sure what they think of magicians (think David Blaine or Copperfield), but then again entertainers like that don't *really* claim to be anything other than illusionists.

    2. Re:WTF guys? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      The evangelicals have a hard-on about any depiction of magic, even fictional.

      Yes, but they unquestioningly believe that God and miracles exist... (Which is, of course, nothing but magic by another name.) To each their own delusions I say and I will tolerate theirs if they will tolerate mine, which, I have found, they generally won't.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:WTF guys? by Xest · · Score: 1

      "While I wouldn't vote for a Democrat on general principle"

      Out of interest (and I'm not from the US, but am simply intrigued) what principle is this?

    4. Re:WTF guys? by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      The principle of being born on GOP land. And to a GOP family. It is not a matter of choice because that has already been made for you.
      Which is a rather feudal principle. Not a democratic one.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    5. Re:WTF guys? by Xest · · Score: 1

      Well I did wonder, the idea of eliminating a party outright (especially when you live in what is basically a two party nation) seemingly regardless of it's policies but simply because of who they are seems awfully stupid to me.

      We suffer the same problem in the UK, I call it Football Team Politics- people vote for a certain team because their family etc. have always voted for the blue team, or the red team. Not because of any particular care for the political leanings or merits of each party.

    6. Re:WTF guys? by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      Everybody suffers from that. That's why you will find that a lot of people vote against their best interest.

      But this does NOT explain John Major since nothing ever will.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
  28. Fishy by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    The Justice Department is investigating claims that she used a +7 charm spell the night before the election.

  29. Re:The most lucrative World of Warcraft profession by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    Speaking of gold farmers, she can get busy taxing them.

    And tax the people outfitted in purple, while you're at it. They have greater ability to pay and can use their power to abuse the little guy.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  30. Achievement, 'Sentate Raider' Unlocked! by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2

    Apparently you can run the state of Maine from your parents basement.

    Yeah, didn't you know about the command for that? Open up the console and type, '/RunForMaineSenate'.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  31. Blizzard chat clients by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2

    Not every player plays for the end game loots. There as a very large demographic of people who use the game a s social media.

    As a friend once observed: "WoW is the world's largest IRC client...."

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  32. Thomas Martin you nub by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thomas Martin you nub

  33. Any time they want to lower in game taxes by davydagger · · Score: 1

    "where the Maine Republican Party turned her game playing into a significant issue."

    I feel the kingdom of stormwind is unfairly taxing me 5% of auction house gains. What is she going to do about this?

  34. The real question! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Is she going to just sit there and run daillies each day, or join epic 25 man?

    Apparently she is already a master of CC and kiting. But Horde are OP anyway.

  35. WoW is now the D&D of Christian fear myths? by jeff13 · · Score: 2

    When this story broke I immediately thought back to my days in the 80's playing D&D and the fear evangelical Christians had of the game. I even remember being chased, yes chased, out of a friends house by his crazed father. I'd no idea at the time but somehow there was a growing fear that D&D lead to devil worship. Or something. I do recall there were even news reports along this line.

    So now, put into a political context, this fear has been reanimated by the Maine GOP to accuse their opponent of being 'not one of us' at best and an agent of evil at worst. WoW is the new D&D! Clever. Fits the GOP play-book, however, it didn't work. Rather like a lot of the GOP play-book isn't working anymore.

    It's worth it to know that in the years since I'd discovered the source of the Christian fear of RPG games. The comics of one Jack Chick. Wonderfully illustrated but deeply paranoid, his comics are familiar to any fundamentalist church goer. The D&D issue can be found here...
    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.ASP

    1. Re:WoW is now the D&D of Christian fear myths? by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      Oh wow! I didn't know that comic. Is it real?

      I wouldn't say that the motivation for that comic and a candidate being smeared for playing WoW are the same. The D&D isue profited nobody and was nothing but a witch hunt. Trying to paint somebody in a bad light for playing an MMO was just a smear campaign that backfired. I guess a lot of people on the GOP campaign team also had WoW accounts. The real issue here propably is that they expected the voters to swallow it. Which in design is an insult to their intelligence.

      Here is how you could shock the real Christian Taliban.
      First create a human male character.
      Then place him behind a cow.
      Then chant the ancient evil mantra "/dance".
      Fraps that. Submit it to whoever wants to listen as "Cow Sodomy Simulator corrupts our youth by the millions!".
      Next step: set up a booth selling torches and pitchforks next to their church.
      Profit.

      In short:
      1) Steal underwear.
      2) Sodomize a cow.
      3) Profit.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    2. Re:WoW is now the D&D of Christian fear myths? by jeff13 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely real. And you sir have a future in politics. lol ;p

    3. Re:WoW is now the D&D of Christian fear myths? by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      Absolutely real. And you sir have a future in politics. lol ;p

      I always thought I had it in me. But then I discovered I couldn't deliver the lines and keep a straight face :(

      --
      20 minutes into the future
  36. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I'm going to look up her toon and see what server she plays on and tell her she rocks and to GAME ON.

    The GOP really lost the election because they're not gamers of any kind - as a matter of fact, they don't know what that is at all
    and are pretty much dorks when it comes to technology (IMHO), WOW included...

  37. Would've been a lot cooler if the game didn't suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if she won in 2006 I'd be happy, today, it's meh.