[QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Strider212"]

Come on guys really? Polls never indicate anything. It's one thing to vote when it doesn't count, and it's another when it does.

I don't particularly like either candidate, but if Obama is elected, prepare for a socialist capital hill. And let me tell you, socialism DOESN'T WORK. It didn't work for the Russians, and it won't work here. In America, you get what you pay for, and you can only count on what you earn.

Change for change's sake is never a good thing.

That said, McCain isn't my favorite, but in this case it's the lesser of two evils.

Lord__Darkstorn

Russia wasn't a socialist country it was a communist country.. Russia controled all facets of industry to the extreme.. Socialist countries don't do that, they do strict regulation but they don't control/own them.. You know the difference right? And you clearly don't realize that 90% of all other western nations has a national health care plan.. Top thats the only real socialistic policy he has even suggested to add..

That statement, sir, is incorrect. The world has never seen a strictly "communist" society. Russia was socialist. Your definition of socialism is misinterpreted. The policies laid out in the "Communist Manifesto" were never fully realized within Russia's economic system, at least according to Marx's definition.

You're half right. Marx advocated something that the world has never seen before, even now. But Russia was not Socialist. Russia is considered by most historians to have been a Leninist country. Leninism differs from Marxism because Vladimir Lenin came up with the idea that a true Communist 'utopia' could not exist while it had enemies in the world. So Lenin expounded that Russia must become a powerful totalitarian state, crush it's enemies, and then there would be freedom to have a Communist state. Leninism didn't work the way he wanted to, to say the least.

Socialism is the way to go, IMO.

To you last statement, I have to disagree. There are HEAPS of economic data that show mass redistribution of wealth actually hurts the economy. It creates gigantic disincentives for the workforce. And if the workforce ain't workin' it ain't good.

In the end, the math doesn't lie.

[QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"]

Communism isn't all that bad.sSubZerOo

Actually it's probably the worst form of government imaginable.

YOU like the growing gap between the rich and the poor? That isn't the case, is it? How would you run a country? I'm curious.

< :) SRSLY>

google: Libertarian

Libertarians want to let Wall Street take over the country by limiting government regulation. Look what Reaganomics got us: a critical bumber of mortgage failures and a falling economy. Registered Libertarians are also the most well-to-do people in the U.S. on average. They're crazy.

I don't support everything that they believe, but at least they understand sound economics. Government intervention in the market = failure.

How do you think we got into this financial crisis in the first place?

Maybe it had to do with Alan Greenspan, under political influence, holding the interest rate at 1.00% for a whole flippin' year.

.. I don't know what to say.. Things like mininum wage regulations, anti cartel and anti monopoly are neccesary.. If you want to see the dififculties we had in a completely government hands out economy, look at the late 1800s.. There were clear problems there.

Of course you don't know what to say, you don't have an economics degree... jk...

Let me refine my statement to more accurately reflect my view: OVER-intervention in the market by the government = failure

It depends entirely on the situation and what you consider over intervention.. I would agree, I think there is a healthy balance needed in all facets of life.. That being said sometimes its just neccesary.. The great depression could have been avoided possibly if the government reacted fast enough, instead it sat on its hands the entire crash and really didn't do anything..

Polls are actually a very good indication of things.mfacek

No, not exactly.

First, popular vote has never determined an election. Second, look at the types of people that actually take the polls. Are undecided votes included? Are casually-interested citizens included? No. Most often, hardcore liberals or conservatives are the ones answering the polls. Not exactly an accurate population sample.

I love that people make it seem as though Obama calls for communism. The closet thing to "socialism" Obama brings to the table is socialized healthcare. We are the only developed nation in the world without socialized healthcare and 48 million are unisured becuase of it.

Obama isn't a socialist, calling him one and throwing him in with the likes of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, and Marx just comes off as juvenile and severely uninformed.mfacek

First off, I never called Obama a socialist: that was an insinuation that you made. It is evident, however, that he believes in several utopian ideas where there are no poor people and everyone has a job.

Second, so just because every other nation has socialized health care, that makes it a good thing? Have you ever studied the economics of socialized medicine?

Giving everyone health care, essentially makes the price of health care equivalent to zero. That means that everyone and their brother would flood hospitals nationwide with nothing less than the sniffles. So guess what? When your daddy comes in for a real emergency, say a heart attack, he has to wait because of huge lines caused by socialized medicine.

Another problem with socialized medicine is that it essentially takes away all incentive for doctors to work at a fair pace. Doctors are no longer paid on a patient by patient basis, so what incentive is there for them to offer speedy, quality helathcare? If you receive the same paycheck each week regardless of your performance, what keeps you from slacking off? Nothing.

Obama wants change because America is just circling the toilet after 8 years of failed policies. It certainly isn't change for change sakes.mfacek

Really? That sounds like it to me. As far as I'm concerned, Obama is so busy touting the words "Change! Change! Change!" that he hasn't spent the time to really explain what he wants to change! He is a wonderful speaker, much better than the other candidates, but I don't buy his change mantra. Other politicians have used the same mantra, and they didn't perform any better.

[QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="Lord__Darkstorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"]

Communism isn't all that bad.sSubZerOo

Actually it's probably the worst form of government imaginable.

YOU like the growing gap between the rich and the poor? That isn't the case, is it? How would you run a country? I'm curious.

< :) SRSLY>

google: Libertarian

Libertarians want to let Wall Street take over the country by limiting government regulation. Look what Reaganomics got us: a critical bumber of mortgage failures and a falling economy. Registered Libertarians are also the most well-to-do people in the U.S. on average. They're crazy.

I don't support everything that they believe, but at least they understand sound economics. Government intervention in the market = failure.

How do you think we got into this financial crisis in the first place?

Maybe it had to do with Alan Greenspan, under political influence, holding the interest rate at 1.00% for a whole flippin' year.

.. I don't know what to say.. Things like mininum wage regulations, anti cartel and anti monopoly are neccesary.. If you want to see the dififculties we had in a completely government hands out economy, look at the late 1800s.. There were clear problems there.

Of course you don't know what to say, you don't have an economics degree... jk...

Let me refine my statement to more accurately reflect my view: OVER-intervention in the market by the government = failure

[QUOTE="Strider212"]

Come on guys really? Polls never indicate anything. It's one thing to vote when it doesn't count, and it's another when it does.

I don't particularly like either candidate, but if Obama is elected, prepare for a socialist capital hill. And let me tell you, socialism DOESN'T WORK. It didn't work for the Russians, and it won't work here. In America, you get what you pay for, and you can only count on what you earn.

Change for change's sake is never a good thing.

That said, McCain isn't my favorite, but in this case it's the lesser of two evils.

sSubZerOo

Russia wasn't a socialist country it was a communist country.. Russia controled all facets of industry to the extreme.. Socialist countries don't do that, they do strict regulation but they don't control/own them.. You know the difference right? And you clearly don't realize that 90% of all other western nations has a national health care plan.. Top thats the only real socialistic policy he has even suggested to add..

That statement, sir, is incorrect. The world has never seen a strictly "communist" society. Russia was socialist. Your definition of socialism is misinterpreted. The policies laid out in the "Communist Manifesto" were never fully realized within Russia's economic system, at least according to Marx's definition.

[QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"][QUOTE="-Austin-"][QUOTE="Zorn_Ate_Thorn"]

Communism isn't all that bad.Lord__Darkstorn

Actually it's probably the worst form of government imaginable.

YOU like the growing gap between the rich and the poor? That isn't the case, is it? How would you run a country? I'm curious.

< :) SRSLY>

google: Libertarian

Libertarians want to let Wall Street take over the country by limiting government regulation. Look what Reaganomics got us: a critical bumber of mortgage failures and a falling economy. Registered Libertarians are also the most well-to-do people in the U.S. on average. They're crazy.

I don't support everything that they believe, but at least they understand sound economics. Government intervention in the market = failure.

How do you think we got into this financial crisis in the first place?

Maybe it had to do with Alan Greenspan, under political influence, holding the interest rate at 1.00% for a whole flippin' year.

Come on guys really? Polls never indicate anything. It's one thing to vote when it doesn't count, and it's another when it does.

I don't particularly like either candidate, but if Obama is elected, prepare for a socialist capital hill. And let me tell you, socialism DOESN'T WORK. It didn't work for the Russians, and it won't work here. In America, you get what you pay for, and you can only count on what you earn.

Change for change's sake is never a good thing.

That said, McCain isn't my favorite, but in this case it's the lesser of two evils.

[QUOTE="darth-pyschosis"][QUOTE="angry_fork"][QUOTE="jethrovegas"][QUOTE="angry_fork"]

I didn't mean it in that way. I meant that they made Ocarina of Time from the ground up for the N64 and gave us a masterpiece, but for the Wii they gave us a gamecube port. Where is our ground-up Wii Zelda? It's nowhere to be found, which is Nintendo's fault.

angry_fork

So, what? You wanted better waggle integration?

Come on man, I played it without the waggle on the GC and I thought it was fantastic, and very well designed.

Who cares about whether or not it was a ground-up Wii game? It was a great game that held up Zelda's legacy of razor sharp design, and that's what matters.

That's not the point, it's the point that Nintendo doesn't care enough to make a brand new Zelda game for the core crowd, instead they'd rather give us something we already played, and focus all their attention on Wii Sports Resort. YAY!!! That's the entire point, you weren't playing "A link to the past" on your N64, you were playing Ocarina of Time. (I know that's a harsh comparison seeing as SNES and N64 aren't even remotely comparable but still you get the point.)

By the way, i would've liked:

1. Better graphics
2. Something that wasn't as boring, the wolf parts really dragged the game down for me.
3. All of this talk about how motion controls change gaming, but all they did was add waggle, I want to see them put it to good use and put their money where their mouth is, either that or TP is proof that the Wiimote isn't as revolutionary as everyone acts like it is.

I want Nintendo to make a new Starfox or Donkey Kong, with the SAME time and effort they put into Mario Galaxy, thats it, why is that so much to ask? They keep putting all the resources into the casual crowd and they can't give us that? seriously? Smash Brawl is Smash Melee with more characters, Mario Kart Wii is Mario Kart 64 with a graphical upgrade, Metroid Prime 3 is hardly a jump.

Mario Galaxy is the only game in my opinion that they really strived for, they really delivered and brought a whole new incredible experience, and not some re-hashed, recycled last-gen stuff.

your opinions are based off the non-logical idea that Nintendo won't release a new Zelda for Wii or a new Star fox

they will! just wait. it isn't a changing of guard for ninty oh they didn't give me my star fox now i'm SAD!

they just gave us fire emblem DS, Fatal Frame 4 (publishing it), Sin and Punishment 2, Punch Out, Brawl, Mario and Luigi 3etc.

be patient dude. i think you're expecting way too much and they have confirmed they are making Pikmin 3 and Zelda wii so if you're complaint is they aren't delivering on old ninty franchises you want to see than you're wrong.

they are working on it, they unveiled two of them today, they will prolly show new Zelda, new kirby, new pikmin, new star fox, all within the next year or so. don't buy a wii yet then dude. itll be cheaper and have tons of games by the time star fox wii comes out.

I already have a Wii, i'm not trying to completely bash it or anything, it's just really messed up in my opinion that they focus all of their stuff on casual crap because they could've given us something new by now.

I really do hope you're right, I really want a new Starfox or Donkey Kong, I wish they would just let us know that it'll come in 2009, cuz then i'd keep my Wii and just play PS3 until then, but they're not telling us ANYTHING, which makes me want to sell my Wii this christmas because I know i'll get a lot of money for it.

And you have been buying Nintendo games for how long? They have always played this game. They never release info until closer to the game's release.