Okay, let's start with the fact that the ZX Spectrum, Atari ST, Amiga, and Commodore 64 were all personal computers.  None were a gaming console.  Moot points.

On top of that NES actually matched up identically to what Commodore 64 games looked like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY2gK1MPgh8

On to actual gaming consoles...

Technically, Colecovision and NES were in the same generation, and look how much better Nintendo's console looked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv9uxfoVEbQ

Now, when comparing the NES to PC-Engine (aka TurboGrafx-16), Nintendo's system did not look as good.  Also take not that it didn't come out until '87 in Japan, '89 for North America, and '90 for Europe.  For most of the world, it appeared at the tail end of the NES generation.  So this is your only valid comparison for a console that looked better than the NES at the time.  But remember that the NES launched in 1983 in Japan.  TG-16 launched 4+ years after the NES in each region.  Sega's console (which you didn't mention) didn't launch until 1988 in Japan.  So of course both the TurboGrafx-16 and Sega Genesis are going to look better when they launch 4 and 5 years after the NES.  They were next-gen consoles.  The SNES arrived in 1990, serving as direct competition to the other 2 systems.  For its time (1983), the NES looked outstanding for a home gaming console.  And for the others in the next generation (in 1987, 1988, and 1990, respectively), they all looked great for their time. 

I've owned the GB, GBA, GBC, GBSP, DS Lite, DSi XL, and 3DS...

I've also "owned" a N64, NGC, and Wii.

PC, game console, I fail to see the distinction as it relates to the claim that the NES was a graphic powerhouse. I don't mean to be pedantic, but if a statement is only valid when you exclude other gaming systems...

I concede though that I was wrong on the NES' Japan release date. For whatever reason I had late '84 in my mind. I was off by about 15 months, a not-insignificant time period. Regarding Sega's console, I left out the Genesis because it's widely (and correctly) placed a full generation after the NES. The more concurrent Sega system was in '85. Its graphics exceeded the NES' as well. But again, I had late '84 in mind for the NES' release, so...

Yep, that is the Nintendo I love. As far as Nintendo games go, I don't care about the technical graphics so long as it looks good.

But, I also don't care about touch screens and motion controls. All I want is a standard controller to go along with Mario, Zelda, and Metroid. But for some reason Nintendo doesn't think that's enough. I just hope that the next main entries in Mario, Zelda, and Metroid doesn't require too much touch screen or motion control. I just want to sit on my couch, with a controller resting in my lap and enjoy games the same way I have since the 8bit days.

Pretty sure the Wii was the first time a Nintendo home console was the technologically weakest of the competitors.

I know the Nintendo I love and that was the Nintendo that tried to push gaming forward with advances in gameplay that most people never thought imaginable. The best examples I can think of is how they moved from 2D to 3D with the N64, and then experimented further into new directions with games like Pikmin, Wind Waker, Sunshine, and Metroid Prime.

Unfortunately, at one point they decided to play it super safe due to the criticisms and backlash for trying to take things into new directions, and now along with the same Nintendo we've always had - the one that likes to try to release legitimately ambitious titles like Super Mario Galaxy... we also have the new Nintendo that doesn't try at all with the likes of yearly uninspired New Super Mario Bros. releases and casual oriented sequels to beloved franchises like Mario Kart Wii, and they're completely content with the fact that the little effort put into these titles (unfortunately) makes them the most money of all.

I don't blame Nintendo any more than I do consumers for putting up with mediocrity, when we all know Nintendo is capable of so much more.

I'm the exact opposite, which is why I didn't enjoy the Xbox 360 or the PS3 as much as the Wii.

Traditional controls feel old and boring to me. I've been playing dual analogues since 1997, give me something that FEELS new instead of just LOOKING new.

For me, the current gen's main impact wasn't, "wow, I have 720x1280 pixels on my screen instead of 480x640!" it was "wow, I can actually swing a virtual sword with my own arm!"

"PC, game console, I fail to see the distinction as it relates to the claim that the NES was a graphic powerhouse."

It's like comparing consoles today to the highest-end PCs. Technology advances on a daily basis for PC, and will always remain on the cutting edge, and always look better than dedicated gaming consoles. When Gears of War came out for X360 and God of War 3 released on PS3, those machines were proven to be graphical powerhouses. Even though, at the same time, if those games came out on PC they would have looked even better. There's always a better piece of hardware available to upgrade to on your personal computer. There always has been, and always will be, a marked difference in visual fidelity between PC and consoles.

"I left out the Genesis because it's widely (and correctly) placed a full generation after the NES."

And the TG-16 only came out 1 year prior to the Genesis.  So if one is nex-gen, then both should be considered.

Internet... everyhting can blamed on the internet

What?

First there is an elite ranking in VGChartz based in the number of posts, and now there is a Nintendo ranking based in the amount of Nintendo consoles your money and age allowed you to buy?