Idiots, the whole lot of you.
One thing that I kept having thrown in my face the entire election race, especially on election day, was how little people knew. Lately, people have been arguing "Now we have a democratic congress, we can get some changes done". Uhm, hello, 110th congress was democrat majority for both house and senate. "Oh, but Bush just vetoed everything". Why not go look at his veto record. I had someone kept harping on the fact that Bush set a 200 year veto record, as if it was such a bad thing, and he was a "veto machine". Actually look at what the record for. He had gone the longest of any president since Thomas Jefferson WITHOUT using a veto. His entire first term, and the first half of his second term, saw no vetos what so ever. In that time since, 12 vetos, 4 of which were over turned. ZERO pocket vetos. Yeah, that really sounds like a "veto machine". You have to go back to Warren G. Harding to find another president that had anywhere close to as few vetos as Bush, and Harding died during his only term!
Now, I am not trying to say that Bush is a good president. I personally don't like him either. He's done shit for the economy, and got us into a bad situation in Iraq, while downplaying Afghanistan. I'm just saying, that people need to get a fucking clue. For most people, Clinton was this fucking god of a president, with his only wrong doing was "getting some head". Uhm, dude, look again. Leach-Bliley Act? That deregulated the Banking and Securities industries, and helped heavily to get us into the current economic situation (encouraging all the sub-prime interest loans, mergers, etc). Digital Millenium Copyright Act? Oh yeah, that's doing wonders for our cryptographers, or our right to fair use. Oxley Sardaines? Another masterful economic stroke. As far as fighting goes, Clinton used the shit out of the military as well. Kosovo, (Black Hawk Down location), etc. The only real difference is that Clinton would send in, muck around with a country, and then move right on to the next, never spending a lot of time in one area. While all of this was happening, very little was ever done to help replenish the supplies being used by the military. Now, you're probably thinking, "oh, but Clinton was fighting against the republican congress the entire time. They were probably the ones pushing all of those military actions. That's how republicans are." Well, look historically at the stance of presidents on war in relation to their political party. Lincoln, a republican, saw the civil war errupt on his watch, and did what he could to stop it (which he did stop it, and won re-election before being assassinated). Harry Truman dropped the atomic bomb on Japan, twice, and he was a democrat. Kennedy, a democrat, got us actually fighting in Vietnam. Johnson, a democrat, ramped up Vietnam. Nixon, a republican, got us out of Vietnam. This isn't a rant about one party or another, since they're both equally fucked up. "Want change? Vote democrat."? My ass. Does it really matter what group a person says with? Not really, especially if you pay attention to people's voting records. In this past election, there were some Democrats that McCain had more in common with than some republicans (that also I might add, voted similarly to Obama). All it means, is basically who is bank rolling the last part of their election campaign.
Speaking of which, try this on for size. In the 2004 election, both major canidates spent in the neighborhood of $40 million. For this, the 2008 election, Obama spent in the neighborhood of $500,000,000 while McCain spent $300,000,000. It will take Obama roughly 122 years to make back the amount of money he spent to get the job, based on the current salary for the position and basic cost of living increases. Providing that he doesn't get turn in to a head in a jar, akin to Futurama, he'll have died 2 times over before that happens. Obama, and zombie Obama? And we trust this man to fix our current economic situation? "But what about taxes?". Pfft, like President has any control over taxes. That shit is congress. Most of the shit going on is in the territory of congress, yet shit ain't getting done. Crap keeps getting worse, and we expect these fuckers to fix it.
Fucking morons.
The topic says it all. I hate this day. I wish the 31st was removed from the calendar.
Another of my projects I am working on, has somewhat gone live.
Rather that keeping it under wraps till things are going, due to its nature, I'm launching right away.
Cheapbastardgamer.com is a site that helps you sort through the crap, and find out what games are good, that will easily fit in any poor man's budget. Anyone who knows me, knows that this is an area that I excel in. Anyway check it out, see it evolve. Hopefully soon will have a better layout up.
As some of you may know, I like the guitar music games, and currently have GH on my Wii. That is no secret. I may not be all that good (real instrument playing ability does not transfer well), but it is fun. But now, especially that I own a 360, I am faced with a decision in the near future. Rockband 2 or Guitar Hero World Tour?
As far as Guitar Hero goes, the hamhanded treatment of the wii for 3 has left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. Plus, for World Tour, it seems as if they're doing a bit of copycatting, by adding the other instruments, to stay afloat. Plus the creation of all the additional games, rather than expansion packs or downloadable content, is a bit shitty. Yeah, I'll pay $60 for a game that has one third the normal amount of songs! Pffht. I mean, Activision is saying they want three times the number of guitar hero games by 2010. As is they have Guitar Hero 1, 2, 3 and Aerosmith. Add in world tour, and thats 5 games. Even if you leave out WT, they're wanting 12 games total in about a year. Already on tap is Metallica and possibly Hendrix. They're whoring themselves out. But, WT does offer some cool things, such as custom song creation, and the drumset looks cool with the cymbals.
One reason to go the Rockband route, is the amount of DLC. All the songs from RB1 (with the exception of 3 songs for legal reasons), both on the disk, and DLC, are available in 2. That's a huge reason in my book. I know I hated that in GH, where there were a handful of songs I wanted in other versions, but oh, not available to me unless I wanted to get everything for a different system. Not to mention, it is by Harmonix, who created Guitar Hero, and have been doing music games for years now. They know what they're doing.
I dunno, I'll probably go the Rock Band route, unless some really bad ass songs appear on Guitar Hero.
After my usual sort of horsetrading, I am now a member of the Wii60 segment of the gaming populous. Why did I do it? Don't I love my Wii anymore? Yes I do, but, the fact of the matter is that the Wii is severely lacking in some areas. (no, not graphics, doesn't really bother me).
The Wii has shit for decent games. Basically the handful of games that Nintendo released, and a few third party games. The rest, all shovelware. And a large portion of the games available more or less are the same thing. I am not a minigame fan, so that removes like 75% of the games for me. The rest of the games are more childish, which while are often great, sometimes I just feel like picking up a gun and blowing someone's head off. Not a huge number of games that do that on the Wii (Yes, I know some do, and I have those games already). Plus online support is nonexistant, and really kinda sucky when a game does online things (takes forever to get a match in mariokart or brawl). What really pisses me off, is how the third party companies keep treating Wii owners as second class citizens, using third string devteams to make half baked ports. Guitar Hero 3, awesome game, but tons of issues on the wii, and promised things never arrived. Rock Band? No DLC. Spiderman 3? zOMGWTFBBQ! THE BRIDGE WAS CUT IN HALF!! When the Wii does something good, it does it really good. I love Godfather Blackhand Edition on the Wii. The motion controls take a mediocre game, and make it something special.
The 360 has really dropped in price (to where you can get it cheaper than the Wii), and has a huge catalog of games, thanks to backwards compatability (which isn't as good as the Wii's), and the extra numbers of native games (360 had an extra year to get games out, plus more games are being released for it). Plus this way, I dont have to miss out on any games. Awesome game comes out on Wii? I am there. Awesome game comes out on 360? Right in line. Awesome game comes out on both? Pick the system with the best features (which I have to admit, I do prefer some Wii games to the 360 counterpart). Basically, they each fill niches in my gaming desire. If I want a group game, or something silly, I go wii, if I want to blow something up, I go 360.
