The best thing about Ground Zeroes is that it looks like it's going to be the best looking game this gen, hands down. It's also a mult-plat. So all of these arguments we've had throughout the gen will be null and void. The PS3 vs 360 debate will end with a tie.

I believe you posted in the wrong thread.  I almost did the exact same thing...  Almost posted in 3DS thread when I wanted to post in the thread that your post belongs in.

actually that was in reference to the fact checkers actually having to be fact checked about Ryans speech.

he was basically saying, they arent going to let false fact check affect them

The best thing about this thread is this post.

He is basically right...  PS3 (Obama) and 360 (Romney) are pretty much the same.

But he's wrong because while Ground Zeroes is certainly graphically impressive, it is not the best looking title. The previous Metal Gears - even MGS4 - had a pleasantly stylized look. Photorealistic Snake just looks... wrong.

(Which is to say, I'm writing in Ron Paul.)

Why not vote for Gary Johnson?  I just wish we could have more people in the debates.  However, the Ross Perot "rule" where you have to have 15 percent in order to get into the debates has effectively shut out third party candidates from debates.  Something has to change with our election process.  To me it seems worthless to vote for the President if you live in a state that you already know the outcome.  There shouldn't be an electoral college and if the winning candidate has less than 50 percent of the votes then there should be a run off (not to sure how else to get the American public to vote for third parties).  Already way off topic here (I blame D21) but voting just seems pointless to me...

Yeah...that's what I was going for!  Thanks for picking up on the analogy, Seth!

I'll post something related to the topic considering my posts were off topic so far. If he can't run on his record at Bain then I wonder where he will want voters to focus on. It seems like he is doing what Obama did in the previous election. Keep the focus on the past while making vague promises for the future. Pretty easy to say you will create 5 million jobs once you become President. However, it is a lot harder to do without a set plan. I believe his main plan is to lease more government lands to the energy companies. While it would provide some short term jobs it wouldn't make a difference in gas prices. Just like opening up the ANWR Alaska reserves Palin so wanted to do. In the overall picture these reserves would maybe lower prices 5-10 cents a few years done the road (if that).

I'd like to see more people in the debates, too. Just about every idea that garners broad bipartisan support sucks shit, but shutting out third parties sucks more shit than most.

I just can't bring myself to vote for Johnson, though. He was good governor and seems a pretty affable guy, but I find him disturbingly Romney-like in the sense that Romney made a shit ton of money but can't muster half as articulate defense of markets as Ron Paul, who has made significantly less than Romney. (Maybe this is  because Romney benefitted from bailouts, lolz.) Similarly, Johnson seems like a guy who likes libertarianism at the gut level but can't really articulate it to people beyond, "Smoking pot is cool with me, brah, and immigration laws are teh racist." Any time he talks libertarian theory, he just sounds totally out of his depth.

Besides, when you're talking about a bunch of people who can't possibly win and the odds of your vote ever deciding an election even at the state level are astronomically small anyway, it seems stupid to figure out where your vote would be the most useful. Nobody will even notice your vote, so you may as well just vote your conscience.