Hey guys. It sucks the first post from me in so many months has to be bad news, but thems tha breaks!! Right now I am having a hard time keeping up with work AND reviewing content, so to take the pressure off I am putting the blog on hiatus till June. Don’t be bummed though, when we come back there will be tons of fun content from both myself and Mr. F.L.A.G., and this hiatus will give us plenty of no stress time to develop our work. Thanks for your patience.
It’s in the Zelda series, and Link is there, and he has an adventure. The end.
You’re off to a running start with Princess Zelda napping in the background. Link must retrieve a piece of the Triforce in order to wake her up, by uniting all pieces of the Triforce. Remember: these games took place a long time ago, a real long time ago, way before Levi Hutchins invented alarm clocks. They had to do some complicated Rube Goldberg Machine stuff in order to wake up, made even more complicated by the fact that Goldberg hadn’t debuted yet.
Hmmmm… Goldberg… Zelda 2 came in a gold cartridge… the opening notes for the music when you enter a village sound like notes from the song “Goldfinger”… the Triforce is golden… the final castle has a golden hue to it… all of the pieces fit Robin! Ganon plans to steal the Triforce from Fort Knox!
Speaking of Bat-Logic
I just want to point out that I cheated a little and used an online strategy guide. In my defense, there is no way that some of these puzzles could have been solved without one, unless there was something in the instruction manual (which I don’t have). Seriously- to get to a vital town you need to hack a forest to bits. Except in this game, the only hackable trees are the ones in that small area surrounding the hidden village, and at no point are you told or even given a hint that you even can hack trees, let alone that particular grouping.
Same goes for a monster sitting in the middle of the road. If this weren’t a carbon copy of waking Snorlax, complete with Pokeflute, I’d have had no idea about what I needed to do. I guess eventually I’d figure it out, by standing there and mashing buttons after obtaining the flute.
As I was reviewing the palace 6 section of the guide, I noticed that it was saying the
knights on horseback you face there are repeats of an earlier boss. I didn’t remember it, but attributed that to the 2 year gap between now and when I last put the game down. Turns out that I didn’t remember it because it was the boss of palace 3, the only boss that I skipped, probably because I wandered into the palace, grabbed the raft, then left thinking I could skip the boss. Or died and was curious about where the raft would take me and forgot all about beating the boss. If you get to palace 7 and the shield refuses to lower, then check how many crystals you have left (the blue circle icon on the start menu, you lose one after beating a palace).
My point is- make sure you get the required item from the palace AND defeat the boss. I don’t know what happens if you skip the item and beat the boss, but having to restart the game is not a risk worth taking.
You are also best served by using the guide to locate vital items like the 4 magic containers and the 4 heart containers. And level all the way up as soon as you can. It helps. You max out at level 8, by the way. Leveling up after that just gives you an extra life. There are also extra lives to be found throughout the overworld, but they can only be grabbed once. Come to think of it… while writing this I just solved a 2 year old mystery. I grabbed one of the extra lives and had no idea I had done so, because it was absolutely useless to me.
Also, be skeptical of any boss strategies the guides give you. For example, the one I used
said that the final battle (spoiler alert: it was against The Enemy Within) could easily be won by standing in a corner. I had no health and no magic left, but I thought it’d be a piece of cake since all I had to do was stand in the corner. The first thing the opponent did was jump up and stab me from above. So much for the guide’s credibility. Plus if you stay crouched in the corner, eventually that boss will just stand in the middle of the screen and do nothing for long periods.
Fortunately for the final palace, which I found rather difficult to get to, unlike with the other palaces once you enter it if you run out of lives you can just select “continue” and you will start out at the entrance to it. Be advised: any of the red magic potions you pickup will still be gone after you lose all your lives and hit “continue”. They only come back if you restart the game. Luckily the fairy stays. Since I found a way to budget lives and magic, you should be able to too. I say this with full confidence in the certainty that I am terrible at video games. Another convenience is that when you beat the first of the two bosses at the final palace it stays dead even if you run out of lives. I know because when The Enemy Within killed me it was my last life. It took the last health of my last life.
Everything mentioned above as such, of course.
The version I played fixed the following issue: on the NES release, the only way to save is to lose all of your lives. On the Game Boy Advance version you just pause the game on the overworld and press up plus either a or b. Or just buy the Famicom Disk version.
I won’t mention the lack of a second quest. I mean, there is one, but unlike the first Zelda game everything this time around is exactly the same as it was before. The only difference is you start with all of the spells and fully levelled up. You will still have to hunt for the 4 magic extenders and 4 life extenders. So aside from that it’s pretty much what happens in Super Mario 64 once you get all the stars- no new quests, but you can play the old ones over again with a fancy skill you didn’t have the first go-around.
I guess I ended up mentioning the lack of a second quest anyway, but I don’t see that as a
problem since the game’s big enough for just one playthrough to feel sufficient (I think, my playthrough took 2 years… technically, 22 years given that I first played the game in the 90s), leading into another nitpicking- the entirety of the map for the first game, that you spend hours wandering through, is scaled down and displayed as a few tiles towards the bottom of Zelda 2’s expansive overworld. Part of me likes the reference, but part of me thinks that sort of trivializes everything from the first game. That adventure seems so small now. No… the adventure is big, it’s the overworld that got small.
But in-universe, in Zelda 2, how did Link so easily work his Peter Pan/Legolas-lovechild-twink self through the Zelda 1 overworld when in Zelda 1 you couldn’t go beyond that area? Hyrulean magic and technology were not up to the task of building a path! Either that or one of the cave shopkeepers or palaces was blocking the route, and Hyrulean officials decided to exercise their eminent domain powers to seize those areas and open them up for public travel.
You might expect me to rip on the change in format from the first and third game (and the Game Boy games) like everyone else does. Battles fought in a sidescroller style, leveling up, stuff like that. Nope. I had no problem with this.
“I had no problem with this.” – Mr. Flagg
David Hogg, one of the brats who liberals tell us has moral superiority and is beyond criticism on every issue because he survived a shooting (meanwhile, the Left tells us veterans and victims like with Benghazi have no moral authority and in fact are liars, even going so far as to downplay the terrorist attack or hide it) has started a boycott of Laura Ingraham because she rightly pointed out he is a whiny little baby. Not because of his anti-gun activism, not because he refuses to accept the idea of reinforcing schools rather than violating people’s 2nd Amendment rights (Hogg even came out against teachers being armed, noting that because law enforcement in his area consisted of democrat cowards that teachers would be no different, forgetting, of course, the uncountable times armed police and civilians have stopped shooters, but remember: this is an impudent child) , not because he’s a typical liberal activist (meaning that when he was born, he screamed and waved his fists like everyone else, but unlike everyone else he never stopped), but rather because he is complaining that colleges were rejecting him. Yup, over a small but true insult irrelevant to gun activism, Laura Ingraham lost a double-digit number of sponsors because David Hogg is a spoiled brat that can’t take the least little criticism, which probably explains why he and his fellow babies refuse to debate on gun control and indeed refuse to acknowledge that another side to the issue exists. A side which acknowledges little things like how gun-free London has a higher murder rate than gun-ridden NYC (London has about 3% more people than NYC, but if the Left’s lies about gun control are to be believed then London shouldn’t even have half the murder rate of NYC).
I find it ironic that with the left’s unconditional support for abortion, attempts to dehumanize babies in the womb, and the NY State Attorney General saying that babies in the womb are aggressors and abortion is self-defense, we have the Left parading a bunch of babies in front of us. I’m also gratified to be able to reasonably predict that once the current firestorm over shootings ceases, kids like Hogg will suddenly find their platform yanked out from under them (just ask the DREAMers about being abandoned). Or maybe even find themselves labeled as racists. Given their elementary us vs. them “I’m always right” attitude, maybe they can get a job with Antifa, but don’t expect to get paid on time. At least they have some leftwing activism on their resumes already, pre-shooting, which kind of explains what’s happening now.
By the way- you may have noticed that while the Left is parading the anti-gun students around because it matches their agenda, they’re ignoring or even attacking students or families of victims who are not towing the gun control line. And of David Hogg in particular, let me ask you: how many of you when you were 17 years old regularly used phrases like “living wage“, “white privilege“, and “wrong side of history“? Are you going to argue he’s mature for his age? Intelligent? Remember: he was rejected from a bunch of colleges; that reflects poorly on any argument that he’s mature and intelligent for his age, as does his predilection for profanity. Either the Leftwing activists he’s sided with are handing him scripts, or he’s plagiarizing from Obama speeches.
Before we move on I’ll add a sidebar here- remember how the Left mocked 2nd Amendment advocates (including this NYMag piece that did not date very well) for saying that once they ban guns they’ll go after our knives? How the Left defended knife usage, even noting in defense of knives that people won’t use them in lieu of guns? The mayor of London and other sophisticated Lefties obviously didn’t get the Left’s memo that this was ludicrous and that the slippery-slope argument was an unconvincing fallacy. Or the Left was lying. And remember- America should be more like Europe according to liberals. The same liberals who are caught with loaded handguns which are missing the serial numbers.
To The Matter At Hand – What’s With This Corporate Love Fest?
I have a simple question. Liberals claim to be the anti–corporate (to the point that they object when corporations pay bonuses), anti–millionaire, anti-Wall Street team, right? Then why is it that every time some spoiled brat SJW takes issue with a conservative outlet or group, corporations (who advertise on equivalent or worse liberal programming) bolt from them like cockroaches when the lights are turned on, but then whenever a liberal is exposed the corporations stand in solidarity like cornered wounded animals? Remember how last year’s great Maddow and Cooper boycott ended their careers like the left’s attack on Bill O’Reilly? Of course not, and there’s a reason that didn’t happen. Hell, why is it that when a conservative host lightly insults a liberal activist who himself has been calling everyone who disagrees with him a murderer, the person smearing his opponents as killers is the one that corporations side with? (Then again, if the corporate heads only paid attention to the liberal media as it fawned over its new heroes, they might not know how insulting the Parkland brats have been.)
It makes no sense to me. Why would corporations flee from or attack the very people who supposedly support them, but then rally around their alleged enemies? It can’t be because public opinion is against conservatives, everything from polls to elections shows quite the opposite and also show that some of the causes that liberal groups circle the wagons around are very unpopular with the public. It can’t be because corporations are diverse environments loaded with traditionally liberal voters who are just following their consciences, otherwise A: corporations would not exist because the anti-capitalist (unless it’s the Crony variety) Left would have disbanded them lest they be accused of hypocrisy, B: the leadership wouldn’t be a bunch of old white men, and C: the Left’s narrative about corporations being soulless non-entities would be disproved.
I am at a loss here for an explanation, unless it were to somehow turn out that big billionaires benefited from the Left. But that would be strange, given how liberals never lie and always tell us that they’re against such billionaires because they’re jealous of their wealth and because they’re mostly white. Or, as was the case with the liberal love fest/media cause du jour Occupy Wall Street protesters, they are against the corporate overlords because they’re Jews.
We all can acknowledge that you don’t get to be a corporate overlord without some intelligence, yes? Is it smart to encourage your predators in this manner? If the Left were as genuinely anti-corporate as they claimed, why would intelligent businessmen support them? Why would companies surrender to liberal boycotts, whether it’s in dropping anything from a Fox News host to an entire state, yet when there is controversy around a liberal the companies seem immune to all boycott efforts? Bill O’Reilly was fired while Indiana and Georgia backed down as a result of boycotts, whereas liberal hosts still have their jobs and liberal companies still remain liberal.
You Still Haven’t Explained The Love Fest
The answer is simple: while the Left claims to be socialist or even communist, they’re really fascist. Liberal Wikipedia defines fascism as “a form of radical authoritarian nationalism… characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce”. Obama’s pen and phone, Antifa, boycotts to advance political agendas and control corporate sponsorships. Sure sounds a lot like the Left is fascist to me. “But what about nationalism,” you ask? One nation- across the globe. The modern fascist Left, while very similar to its 20th-century forebears, only differs in that it switched out the Jews for Whites (but Israel is still hated) and switched nationalism for globalism.
“Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties” as liberal Wikipedia tells us, and if you’d bother to look at their reactions to Trump, and his victory in particular, you would notice that they can best be summed up as “the only voters who matter are Democrat voters”. How tolerant, from the party that claims to value tolerance, from the party who once told Republicans “you don’t like a particular policy or a particular president, then argue for your position… Go out there and win an election.”
From their reaction to Trump, you get a general idea that they believe democracy is obsolete, and with everything they demand the government have the power to do, you get a distinct impression that they want totalitarianism. Certainly, that part about preparing for economic difficulties comes into play, specifically wealth inequality through the partly-Democrat-caused 2008 crash (as I said before, the Democrats walked into a powder keg and deliberately lit a match because they wanted a big boom) is another crisis that society should be mobilized towards. As for armed conflict? They actually dropped that, at least until they started demanding we start a war with Russia.
“The Fascist regime created a corporatist economic system in 1925 with the creation of the Palazzo Vidioni Pact, in which the Italian employers’ association Confindustria and Fascist trade unions agreed to recognize each other as the sole representatives of Italy’s employers and employees, excluding non-Fascist trade unions”. Name one union in the U.S. that isn’t a Democrat donor. And, a corporatist system sure explains why corporations are so eager to suck up to the Left. They want to be the winners. You see, while the Right is generally good for corporations (or so goes the stereotype for you doubters), it’s good for ALL corporations and small businesses. The Left, on the other hand, has a tendency to pick the winners and losers, with policies that all around crush small businesses.
“Fascism’s theory of economic corporatism involved management of sectors of the economy by government or privately controlled organizations (corporations)… Each trade union or employer corporation would theoretically represent its professional concerns, especially by negotiation of labor contracts and the like. It was theorized that this method could result in harmony amongst social classes… However, authors have noted that historically de facto economic corporatism was also used to reduce opposition and reward political loyalty”. Gee, I wonder which political party has done that?
So as the venerable founder of this blog has pointed out before, whenever a liberal yells “fascist” it’s probably because they’re looking in a mirror.
And that in effect answers my question above. Why do corporations always kowtow to liberals, no matter how immature and spoiled they are? It’s because the Left will grant them favors in the future. Sacrificing dignity for profit, and liberals are encouraging this practice which they otherwise denounce. Hypocrisy.
Hillary Clinton, the mainstream media, #NeverTrumpers, Democrats in general (except for some bitter Bernie blokes), foreign leaders with ties to the Clinton Foundation, celebrities, most of our medical and psychological professionals, and the white people in charge of our tech industry were all DESPERATE to get Hillary Clinton into office. Just how desperate? They attacked Trump with what felt like an unprecedented degree of savagery, maybe because of the internet and the Left giving more voice to nutcases or because the Left had to make up for crying wolf so many times already. But that’s not the only measure of desperation. The Left was so dedicated to getting into the White House that they were willing to kill their own candidate.
For those who still can’t accept that she lost, it may have been a case of the God you don’t believe in saving your messiah. Remember how she fainted in September 2016? Remember that incessant coughing that plagued her for nearly a year? Remember that book from 2015 in which from alleged anonymous sources (the same unimpeachable ones the Left is enamored with when it comes to their anti-Trump narrative) we learn that Hillary herself may have been worried about her health? Remember how as far back as 2012 she fainted and landed in a way that gave her a concussion? Nope, of course, you don’t. Your candidate was fit and virile. Why, when she collapsed and was tossed into her car “like she was a side of beef”, that was immediately followed by her doing a rolling flip out the other side like she was Willy Wonka! Or so the media and Democrats tell us in their hard-hitting interviews and insightful commentary (and you’re also sexist according to Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D) -and presumably MSNBC- if you question Hillary’s health).
However, we have seen several instances post-election of failing health, most recently in India when she fractured her wrist by slipping in the bath tub and at another point had to be carried down stairs after slipping twice (you might recall this as the trip where she again said half the country were backwards racists, and those white women would have voted for her if the men in their lives had not violated a bunch of laws by forcing them to vote for Trump (but I guess if the Democrats in government won’t enforce the law and handle all the sexual abuse that Planned Parenthood covers for then women can’t expect much help from their Leftist heroes when it comes to voting either). How Presidential. If this is how her health is after a hundred day vacation followed by light duty, what would have happened if she were President? Would she be the first handicapped woman President? I doubt it; I can’t picture her with one of those cigarette holders unless she also started squawking, master of fowl play that she is.
To the feminists out there, look at the silver lining, we might have the first woman CIA Director thanks to Trump, and we have the first woman to successfully run a Presidential campaign thanks to Trump. Oh wait, they’re Republicans. That means everything they do hurts women somehow, no matter how many glass ceilings they shatter. That’s why Democrats are destroying Trump’s nominee for first female CIA Director when previously they told us just to vote for their candidate because the candidate had a uterus. That’s why it was not sexist for Democrats to vote against both the first female President (Hillary) and first female Vice-President (Sarah Palin) in 2008, instead electing Obama and his eventual boys club that did not pay women equally. Obama and his male chums were Democrats though so that trumped any Republican history-making, and Obama is black which puts him higher in the victim hierarchy so that trumped Hillary and led to a victory for progressives. Just like how accepting Islam and encouraging women to wear hijab as a show of support for Islam’s oppressive treatment of women is also progress. In fact, a current feminist is just such a person.
So what would have happened had President Hillary answered the phone at 3am by saying “I’ve fallen and I can’t get up”? Because everyone knows that Bubba would be too busy with the interns to be around when his wife was in trouble. Well, we’d end up with President Tim Kaine.
Who Is Tim Kaine?
It’s A Process
Obama asked Tim Kaine to step down as DNC chair and run for Senate in Virginia after he picked Kaine to become DNC chair in the first place just two years prior, while Obama appointed the much more shady and corrupt Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as DNC chair. Schultz was one of Clinton’s national campaign co-chairs in 2008. Two peas in a pod. Obama allegedly made a deal to support Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race, which he ended up doing before she had won the nomination, in fact, he pretty much endorsed her the moment she said she was running. And we all know how Obama-appointed-Clinton-crony Wasserman-Schultz rigged the DNC primary (tangential, but three months after the court ruling that the DNC rigged the primary and was well within its rights to, the Washington Post said the primary was not rigged).
Y’know, this really makes Obama sound like a political mastermind, rewarding his buddy Tim Kaine for supporting him (Kaine was on Obama’s list of VP possibilities, so maybe the DNC chairmanship was also to make up for not following through on that), while also setting the DNC up for Clinton. Well, it was his campaign that introduced the Democrats to Fusion GPS, who would go on to conjure a bogus dossier that was used to illegally get warrants for spying on Hillary’s (and Obama’s) political opponents, so maybe there’s something to that notion.
Anyway, this background is all well and good, but how does it lead to Tim Kaine being VP,
you ask? Supposedly, Obama made the deal to endorse Hillary for 2016 in exchange for her not trying to run against Obama in 2012 (a possibility that was apparently a source of buzz in DC in 2010), so Obama wanted Hillary crony Schultz as DNC chair, thus he told Kaine to accept a temporary grade reduction to Senator, in exchange for the promise of being Vice President five years later (for those questioning the veracity of the Ed Klein book cited, keep in mind that he was absolutely correct about the Clintons’ intention to takeover the DNC, and as seen in the above health section Klein seems to have been on-point about the fainting spells). That does explain why minority candidates and female candidates and female minority candidates were passed over by the most diverse political party in favor of a low-ranking rich old white man.. Explains why the Democrats trotted out tired old warhorse Hillary Clinton for one last roundup when she couldn’t even beat an amateur first-term Senator in 2008 (and later an amateur first-time politician in 2016). Explains why a moderate was picked as VP in a time when the party was trying to bring in the Bernie crowd. Explains why Hillary, with an enemies list rivaling Nixon’s, picked a guy that in 2008 endorsed her opponent.
Either that or Hillary just wanted someone who’d be absolutely useless and do only as he was told. Or the party elders, as with Obama, thought that they needed to attach a rich white dude to their candidate to reassure the other racists and sexists in the party that everything was under control. Who knows. But all of this makes way more sense than the official idea that somehow Hillary forgot her animosity, an idea which she just disproved in March 2018 with her idea that half of America is still a basket of deplorables because they did not vote for her.
Snopes tried to debunk this rumor about Kaine, but A: they only went after a story alleging that Hillary arranged it all rather than Obama and B: their tenet that other candidates than Wasserman-Schultz were being considered is debatable given that Democrats have lied about candidate considerations before- the press, the Left (Snopes is totally on the Left), and Hillary herself kept saying she was debating a wide variety of VP’s well into 2016, when in fact she already settled on Kaine by July of 2015. And before the official announcement, Obama said he’d want Kaine to have the job. Certainly, I have more circumstantial evidence here for this than what Mueller’s dug up.
And yes, liberals are more than capable of these levels of cronyism. If rigging the primary so that a big lie of competition is perpetrated upon the public, just like with Hillary’s big lie that there was competition in the VP process, doesn’t convince you then look at this example I wanted to shoehorn in here because I saw it while typing this: in California, liberals are mad that Trump’s tax plan makes their rich elite pay more in taxes, so they’re setting up a loophole. You know, the same liberals who say we need to raise taxes on the rich, doing this in the most liberal, progressive, leftist state. Just how trustworthy are these people?
In keeping with every other thought piece I suppose it is expected that I speculate as to what a Tim Kaine Presidency would look like. That would be quite impossible. You see, the standards I have available to compare this to are absolutely not the standards of the Left today. Even before Trump was elected, the Left was radically different than it was when Kaine was Governor of Virginia. Case in point: the issue of mass shootings. After the Virginia Tech shooting, Governor Kaine created a commission to investigate the incident. Their findings were quite reasonable. It was not mainstream to say “ban all guns” or “ban all guns of a type not related to the attack”. The mainstream media did not call the NRA murderers. Instead, experts found that there were mental health reforms needed, and Kaine signed an executive order making it difficult for people involuntarily put in an asylum to get guns. Compare this to the legislation the Democrats wanted in 2016 in the wake of a shooting- ban people for no reason and without warning from buying guns, in a way that would be next to impossible to overturn. Legislation which Kaine supported. (Then again, Democrats are now supporting the 2nd Amendment thanks to Trump, in an “overthrow the government because we’re spoiled brats that lost” kind of way. Republicans complained all the time about lawless Democrat administrations, like what Tim Kaine would preside over, but once the Secret Service was done investigating them they’d have been thrown into a coffin of snakes if they said anything that could even be remotely interpreted as calling for the assassination of a Democrat.)
I don’t mean to pick on Kaine alone, the ENTIRE Left shifted once Obama won. Even Obama himself. When Hillary presented the idea for what became Obamacare’s individual mandate in 2008, Obama himself came out against it and said that it would never work. Yet this is exactly what he and the Democrats did when they had both houses of Congress and the Presidency, to the exclusion of other issues which only became important to them after they were out of power.
So What Hellscape Did We Dodge?
I imagine that Hillary would have lasted long enough to make good on her threats to shoot down Russian jets in a no-fly zone illegally established over Syria by the U.S. because Hillary likes stabbing her friends in the back or felt slighted because she thinks Putin tried to help Trump or whatever reason floated into her head, which in turn would’ve started World War III. Come to think of it, maybe THIS explains why the Left went with its “Russia committed an act of war during the elections” narrative. Hillary was already trying to push the button anyway. The Left’s dire need to start World War III was there before the collusion narrative, which became their way of both perpetuating their lust for nuclear devastation while soothing the wounds from their 2016 loss. And if Hillary went ahead with her private little war and then collapsed for the last time or coughed herself into unconsciousness because the stresses of Presidency that turn healthy young men gray overwhelmed her already failing septuagenarian health, then we’d be left with Tim Kaine trying to either fight a nuclear war or rebuild after it. The same Tim Kaine who may have merely been handed the DNC Chairmanship and Vice Presidency as a payoff, rather than a merit-based achievement. And I don’t know if his statements were made because of the Left’s post-election descent into unmedicated madness, but maybe a Kaine rebuilding/war effort would reflect his recent statements that Democrats have to fight Republicans in the streets and that whites “have to put [themselves] in a place where we are the minority” (to be fair- Democrat policies don’t really aim for the extermination of a group, but rather its subjugation, hence Jim Crow rather than open genocide, and hence their current activities against white men at the behest of feminism, however, Kaine might court whites in the wake of Armageddon since they’d be weak enough for the totalitarians to take charge). Unless he thought “ooooo, pretty” at the sight of a mushroom cloud and wandered too close to it, in which case either Nancy Pelosi (best known for probably violating some House rule of conduct by crossing the floor and interrupting a speaker because her elitist and vindictive ego was slighted) or Paul Ryan (best known for somehow reminding me of David Hedison) would’ve been left in charge of rebuilding the country.
Well… as I’ve said before, at least this would mean those “They Were 11” twits would never exist! Please at least grant me that much consolation!
Assuming World War III was somehow avoided and Kaine still became President after Hillary did her show-stopping William Henry Harrison impression, what would Kaine in office be like? Imagine Obama, but inept at being willfully incompetent (I’m pretty sure he had an agenda behind the stuff he did to damage the country- in the words of vindicated Sen. McCarthy: “If liberals were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that at least some of their decisions would serve America’s interest.”). He’d just be a lukewarm filler, using his pen and paper to get liberal policies enacted while being totally unable to handle Congress, if it remained dominated by Republicans. If Democrats took over then Kaine would just sign off on whatever crossed his desk. You would not have much in the way of inspiration. He’d sort of be like Gerald Ford, not in policy (as said he’d be like Obama in that area) but in the sense that you’d forget he was there or ever President. To Hillary’s credit, at least her scandals and her spoiled–brat–entitled attitude (which Snopes couldn’t debunk, so it cast shade on the claims instead) would serve to remind people she existed, while Kaine has none of that. Personally, I didn’t even know he was governor of Virginia until he was Hillary’s VP nominee, and I don’t think it ever registered that he was a Senator until sometime during the 2016 election cycle, although when I look back I can recall voting against him, but not much else. I’ve been a resident of Virginia all my life, by the way.
Do I really need to introduce this? It’s Donkey Kong, but on the Game Boy. Warning: some changes were made when porting from Arcade to Game Boy.
You play as Mario in the archetypical battle of man vs. damn dirty ape, because this one won’t keep his stinkin’ paws off your maybe girlfriend (it’s assumed, until Mario later trades in this generic-lady-being-kidnapped-by-a-monkey for a princess-being-kidnapped-by-a-lizard. Based on the character art for her in Super Mario Odyssey, we know Mario’s girlfriend from Donkey Kong went on to strangle cats). You have to hop and climb your way through the stages to rescue her.
Of course the 4 stages you get are based on the arcade, though I’ve read they were scaled back a little to fit on the Game Boy. I wouldn’t know, I’ve only played Donkey Kong on two non-consecutive Atari systems and the Colecovision. I had the e-Reader version but I haven’t touched it in 15 years and probably lost most of the cards.
Anyway, unlike the other iterations of Donkey Kong I’ve played, there is a timer on these stages. Once you’re past the 4 from the arcade, you go on to another 93 stages. I didn’t count; I had to rely on the internet to tell me. They predictably ran out of ideas along the way and repeat the first stage, but with a different art pattern (castle instead of construction project). Some stages also allegedly came from Donkey Kong Junior, who himself appears in this title to help his pep-pep.
The stages get more complex as you progress. Your main task after the first four, aside from in the boss battles, is to move a key from one part of the stage to another, similar to some levels in the American Super Mario Bros. 2. Each stage after the first four and excluding the boss fights also give you three items dropped by your girlfriend: her purse, parasol, and hat. It’s worth the trouble to collect all three of them in each stage, as doing so gives you a chance to get more lives in one of two minigames. One is a slot machine, the other is best likened to a roulette wheel or wheel of fortune. If there is a pattern for when you will get a certain minigame, I don’t know it.
In addition to more stages, Mario has more moves. He can swing from a thin line (a taut rope or power line). Another one of the new moves would go on to show up in Super Mario 64 in a modified form- when he leaps onto his hands and then bounces very high. He can do that either stationary or in motion. He can throw barrels like Dash O’ Pepper, and when standing on his hands he can even stop barrels from hitting him, and then throw them afterwards. We also have the opportunity to see Mario swim. I was hesitant at the first such occasion, since in the original versions of Donkey Kong any fall into a pit meant death. I assumed the water pits were the same, and was pleasantly surprised when they weren’t.
Just like Mario’s Picross, Donkey Kong is enhanced when played on the Super Game Boy. Unlike Mario’s Picross, it really is enhanced. You get more than just a unique border- stages and maps are colored. Donkey Kong and your girlfriend are sometimes colored. Mario… either changes his race (it is fluid you know) or gets jaundice. While I enjoyed the SNES’ presentation, portability was needed for me to complete this game.
Most of the time, things are not so difficult. At least for me. However, there were some stages (such as the final boss) that definitely qualified as difficult. But it’s not as difficult as its successor, Mario Vs. Donkey Kong. Very similar in gameplay- no doubt in part because originally it was to be a remake of this game- but with a much greater difficulty level. I got stuck somewhere in there over a year ago and never looked back.
Unlike Mario’s Picross, I have some criticism here- Nintendo seems to have run out of boss ideas the year this game was released, 1995 (despite the release date, this game is usually referred to as “Donkey Kong ‘94” because that was its title in development). The final boss battle has Donkey Kong taking a super mushroom or two and growing to gargantuan size. Basically, this is the Gamma battle from Mega Man 3, or the Wily battle from Mega Man IV. Donkey Kong’s head sits in the middle, and he attacks with his hands. But that’s not the real reason I cried foul. In 1995, we have another battle where a traditional Mario villain is supersized and mostly in the background: Bowser. This was the year Super Mario World 2: Yoshi’s Island came out. And the villains are fought in a similar way too- chucking objects at their heads. Why couldn’t we have had a gigantic robot Kong of steel instead?
The game passes the time. The puzzle elements kept me coming back, because I didn’t want to be outwitted by yet another Mario Vs. Donkey Kong-style game. I managed to wrap things up in a week or two of intermittent playing, if that is in any way useful for gauging how long it would take to beat the game. At least you come away from this with more knowledge than I had going in- this isn’t a straight port of Donkey Kong to the Game Boy. Yes, I did think that when I saw it in the store (used, no box, no manual, two excuses).
With the midterms coming up, both parties are honing their strategies for winning. The only real Republican strategy for 8 years, even after winning elections, has been “we’re not Obama” and subsets thereof (“we’re against Obamacare”, for example) so it’s safe to brush them aside and focus on Democrats. Their strategy in 2016 was “you’re sexist if you vote against us” (don’t bother disputing, the evidence is right there, and this is a charge lefties in 2008 levied against the very man who the Left would now describe as noted feminist Barack Obama) and “you’re racist if you vote against us” (a charge lefties in 2008 levied against who they are now saying is noted unracist Hillary Clinton), which led to a bizarre circumstance in 2016 where people who did not vote for
old, rich, white, and racist (even according to the Left) Hillary Clinton were said to be racist against blacks. Falling from that height of absurdity, Democrats appear to be rolling out new election strategies.
What I don’t understand is why Democrats are so upset. A: this confirms their narrative that the whole country is racist. B: why would they want a candidate who appealed to all of these racist people? It’s obvious- Democrats lost because they’re more decent than the rest of the country. Run with it guys! Whatever lets you sleep at night. It’s not like this is the first issue you folks claimed to be superior to the masses on.
You Will Kill People
That’s right, if you support Republicans you will kill people. This started softly with gun control where it could be argued there was a more literal truth present (except right now they’re championing gun control in the wake of the Florida school shooting, which we’ve learned was caused by gross negligence both on the part of the school because of Obama regulations, on the part of law enforcement for not listening to tips about the guy (maybe the FBI just doesn’t like Florida?), then law enforcement again for literally standing around while the shooter killed people. The same law enforcement the Left say we should rely on instead of our own firearms. If the current system wasn’t rife with incompetence typical of liberal big government systems, then the Left wouldn’t have yet another shooting caused by government incompetence to exploit.), then expanded to healthcare reform (even though at the end of the day Democrats’ Obamacare was
designed to kick people off their insurance plans, still gave insurance companies loopholes for discriminating against pre-existing conditions, isn’t really giving much of an increase in coverage and definitely not giving much of an increase in quality coverage, all while giving Congress a sweet savings on healthcare and giving insurance companies a big payday) where maybe it was but maybe it wasn’t true, and finally when midterm-clinching tax reform was on the table Democrats insisted that this too would kill people. Granted, thanks to the liberal love of Big Government the IRS does have a death squad, but they weren’t an aspect of the GOP’s tax plan. Besides, tax reform ended up putting money into people’s paychecks. How can giving the average person $1000 worth of crumbs as millionaire Pelosi phrased it, which the average person can’t do anything with because $1000 is worthless to struggling families according to former DNC (friend of the working class) Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (granted, she was $972,000 in debt in 2014 and in 2015 was worth $106,507 so $1,000 really is a crumb to her), possibly kill them anyway? How is it any worse than the tax breaks the aforementioned friends of the working class gave the average American when they were in power, which amounted to at least -$695 last year.
You Are Supporting Russia
This came up briefly in 2016, but really took off later on (I wonder how Democrats reconcile who they are on record calling one of the greatest Presidents ever, Obama, saying that no one seriously believes the elections can be rigged with the current Democrat party line where every liberal must seriously believe that the elections were rigged). Ever since the Left seized onto that excuse, which repeatedly has been shown to bear no weight (even assuming the Russian government was involved), the Russians have been EVERYWHERE.
They interfered in the Virginia gubernatorial elections, are preparing to interfere in the 2018 races, and are even accusing noted SJW George Takei of sexual assault. They’ve spread fear at the University of Missouri, according to Mother Jones in their item “Donald Trump Joins With Russian Bots To Trash Mark Warner On Twitter” Russian bots spread
accusations that Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) colluded with… Russia (kind of shooting themselves in the foot there), were the major force behind the Democrat-damaging Nunes memo being released, blamed Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for shutting down the government in January, helped back Sean Hannity in a feud with Keurig, and after the Florida shooting the Russian bots leapt to the defense of the 2nd Amendment. Russia’s been BUSY! As has been pointed out elsewhere, Russia suddenly being the enemy after 100 years of liberals supporting them is a heel-turn only rivaled by Hulk Hogan’s. I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention all of the times before and even AFTER the 2016 election that liberals and their anti-Trump friends who scream Trump is a traitor for colluding with Russia had themselves colluded with Russia. I bet the media will blame Russian bots for that too, just like the Washington Post will blame Russian bots for why the Post reports both that Russian bots did and didn’t impact the 2016 election.
Uh… if putting the interests of foreigners over the interests of the American people is treasonous according to Democrats, why are Democrats the ones refusing to enforce our laws and shutting down the government in an effort to help foreigners?
You Are Dividing The Country
obvious undermining of any credibility they have when they declare themselves to be tolerant, compassionate, and open-minded. Just listen to the quotes in the links connected to “is” and “an” above: if you didn’t vote for the Democrat, you voted to divide people against each other. They characterized nearly half the voting population as being divisive, much akin to Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” comment. Essentially, ANY form of dissension from the Leftwing narrative of the day, whatever that might be since it changes so damn often to the point of contradiction, is a malicious act aimed to divide the country. Nevermind that the same people accusing the GOP of being evil for dividing the country are the ones that say whites need to be silenced and should be hated and ostracized and are all racists anyway (it’s not just here, by the way), everyone who disagrees with the Left is deplorable, and everyone who isn’t a liberal is such a bad person that it’s ok to physically attack them. And they hope we die.
Like I said- technically it is true that thinking differently from the Left constitutes dividing the country, in an “if you oppose Stalin you are dividing the USSR” sort of way. In
a “not surrendering to the Nazis is dividing the world” kind of way. I had to put that second one in there because as it turns out Stalin isn’t really that bad of a guy according to the Left so they would actually agree that opposing Stalin was an evil act of division. Just ask, ironically, one of the people who was involved in accusing Trump of colluding with Russia if Stalin was such a bad dude. If you believe individuality is fine, as long as we all do it together (by law or force if needed) then you’re on the same page as the Left.
I suppose I could let my logic about liberals being the intolerant stand alone, but here’s some other reading on it. (I love this one’s opening line, “groupthink can be harmful, regardless of how right you usually are”, a nice reassurance to the liberals reading it.)
You Are Sexist
Despite the DNC being run by men, passing over women and women of color when choosing their two leaders, despite Obama having a boys club and various liberals being caught paying women an unequal wage, and the repeated allegations of sexually-based offenses committed against women by Democrats and liberals in general, Republicans are the sexists. Despite the Left’s dedication to forcing women to wear hijab, either through pressure of political correctness or through the celebration of oppressive religious practices that they have not tolerated from other religions, we are told that Republicans are the sexists. Figure that one out.
You Are Racist
You Are A Fascist
You Are <insert group here>phobic
That’s still a thing, because Trump. They assure us that Trump is an <insert group here>phobe, the GOP is an <insert group here>phobe, and thus all Republicans are <insert group here>phobes. (In 2014, I recall Attorney General Eric Holder saying that the GOP’s Voter ID efforts were designed to impact the young, old, and minorities, saying that these groups don’t vote for Republicans. Who the heck is left for the GOP to win elections with? In that same interview, Eric Holder also criticizes the GOP for deciding from the beginning that they’d oppose Obama… a game Holder is helping Dems play now. Just another point on the “Democrats would be praising it if they did it” graph).
Wasn’t That Fun?
There you have it. While the Left might find some real policy issues to disagree on and may even have a real solution that’s better than the Right, we’ll never know because their playbook is designed to avoid policy discussions altogether and instead supplant debate with ignorance and ad hominem attacks. Almost like they don’t really HAVE any policy ideas, just a strong visceral hatred of anyone that isn’t like them. Again, these are the leaders of tolerance. The same tolerant ones where 39% of their number say political opposition will strain a friendship, compared to the intolerant Right’s 13% rate (interestingly, the higher the liberal’s education, the more likely they feel it will be a strain, and also liberals are less likely to have close friends that are Trump supporters than Trump supporters are to have close liberal friends). What a happy indicator for this discussion to end on.
It seems sensible to predict what happens if Democrats win the House and Senate. They’ll never get enough votes to boot Trump out of the White House unless 12 Republican Senators defect (granted, it is likely since most of the Republican Senators were elected as warriors but turned out to be wimps once they actually took control of the Presidency, now using the filibuster as their flimsy excuse for inaction, and as we saw with Obamacare there are Republican senators more than willing to betray their base). So lacking that, what measures can we expect?
Well, in 2006 when they wanted to paint a clear path to victory in 2008, Democrats decided to set banks up to fail by forcing banks to accept subprime mortgages. They then blamed the (partly, because the Dems only took advantage of bad banking practices anyway) Democrat-created tragedy on Republicans (despite Republicans having warned about it) and swept the 2008 elections. Either that or instead of a conspiracy (conspiracy would explain why your anti-corporate saviors on the Left basically paid-off the banking industry for its cooperation. Hey look, if Trump colluded with Russia, if DC is still not a state because of racism, then the Left colluded with the banks! Don’t judge me!) the Left merely took advantage of the crisis they accidentally made. And of course, the other possibility is that Democrats will do what Republicans did under Obama- claim they can’t do anything at all until they get either all of the Senate or the Presidency, and make a bunch of token gestures that they would never follow-through on once they had power.
Liberals indisputably have claimed they are the rational ones. They’re the fact–based, settled science ones. They don’t let emotion and instinct interfere. They’re the ones whose policies will make us healthier. So why are these so-called rational, scientifically-minded, health-conscious people abandoning that?
Elephant In The Room
Let’s start with fat people. Establishing my ethos (you allow it to impact your reasoning when liberals do it, so here I am too): I was obese for 9 years, then dropped to the “optimal weight”, then gained until I was “overweight”, then sort of straddled the line between “optimal” and “over” for the past 4 years. Except recently- I was a few pounds shy of obese for the last month, maybe a week or two longer. Certain issues kept me exiled at my parents’ house, and as is a well-known stereotype parents love to fatten their kids up. Just ask Jon Arbuckle. Oh yeah, exercise is a foreign concept to me and I love eating.
Now that I’ve established myself as a member of the fat group, thus depriving the reader of their own credibility should they accuse me of skinny-splaining, let’s get to the meat of the discussion. Princeton, one of those allegedly esteemed Ivy-league schools, held a dinner aimed at empowering “fat identified” students. This is exactly why an Ivy-league degree isn’t even worth being used as a napkin at that dinner. We have an obesity epidemic in this country, and the Left instead decides that sickness is health. Why?
Princeton’s Lewis Center for the arts also has a course designed to reveal how fat might “be a liberating counterperformance”. I mean, liberating in the sense of liberating the soul from the body after a heart attack, sure. Again, why are these kings of health, who by their own arrogant statements of superiority must acknowledge that obese lifestyles are harmful, knowingly and deliberately promoting said lifestyles?
Ivy Leagues aren’t the only place, of course, we can drop down to Bradley University and
their “The Body Project” which tells us it’s a-ok to be fat. This is using the same crude justification that leads people to think that half the population, including themselves, is gluten intolerant when really it’s half of half of half of half of half of half of the population (about 1% of the country). In fact, Bradley does worse than tell us “if you think you are, then you are and should get a doctor’s note”. Bradley tells us that you’ll die if you DO try to lose weight.
My weight dropped by 30 pounds in two months. My weight jumped by 20 pounds in two months. I’m still here! Wild weight fluctuations haven’t bothered my heart, however reading all this crap about SJW’s perverting science to justify their narcissism (“I’m perfect and you’re offensive and evil for saying otherwise”) is doing a number on my cardiovascular system!
Now we go from me to the general public. Obese award-winning comedian Sofie Hagen proves why the awards council made her a winner with her virtue-signaling attack on Cancer Research UK. CRUK has researched data showing that obesity is the second-most common source of cancer, under smoking. Sofie’s Choice was to cuss out CRUK for daring to present facts that demonstrated she led an unhealthy lifestyle and then proceeded to back up her attack with points that must have come from the aforementioned Bradley University. CRUK started this campaign because only 15% of people (in the U.K.? It doesn’t say) are aware that being fat can cause cancer. If tolerant, educated, open-minded liberals only interested in spreading truth and knowledge like Sofie had their way then this bit of knowledge would be buried and forgotten right next to the 100,000,000 people that liberal ideas like Communism killed in the 20th century.
I started with fat because (at least until the last 10 years when we started getting groups
like NAAFA (yes, it is real) and being fat became a civil rights movement and forcing people to find fat attractive became a new form of brainwashing) it can commonly be agreed, even among liberals, that being fat is bad. Well liberals, this is where your ideology has brought us. Now you’re ironically not even allowed to force people to be healthy. Now Michelle and Barack Obama’s efforts to fight childhood obesity make them look like bigoted mass murderers to the Left. I just disagreed with the program because it had a one-size-fits-all solution that left kids who needed extra food starving, impacting student-athletes (this was either an effort to keep male students from exhibiting toxic masculinity through athleticism, or it was a failure by liberal scientists who think reality conforms to their models and throw out data contradicting it, at the expense of the public, much like Stalin’s agriculture program) and led to schools policing what parents gave their kids to eat thus interfering with parental decisions.
It’s More Than Fat
If you have investment advice for how to milk these civil rights movements (their term, not mine) for all they’re worth, I’d appreciate it. Because I know a new one on the rise that’s sure to take flight. First was transsexual, then transracial, now we have “transabled”. These are people who have perfectly functioning body parts and want to cut them off. That’s different from transsexual in that transsexual’s exchange one for the other, transabled folks just lop their parts off altogether. Period. No replacement. And it’s not just changing from one version of a healthy human to another. They want to be WITHOUT feet, hands, arms, legs, things like that. We are being told to accept this and give them what they want. We are being told that, like obesity, these are conditions that should not be treated.
I thought evolution was settled science. “Transabled” as a normal thing that humans should accept flies in the face of everything that “settled science” tells us on evolution (survival of the fittest, anyone?). Unless there is an advantage to having a mental disorder (BIID) that makes you want to be part of one of the left’s victim classes. Maybe transablism is just an adaptation for humans to survive in the Left’s system of allocating privilege based on how victimized one can claim to be. Let’s be clear– my intent is not to be condescending and demeaning to people who have the disorder; I’m attacking people who say it should be encouraged rather than treated. What’s next, saying that if someone identifies as having cancer they should not undergo chemotherapy? Haven’t liberals attacked people who do that?
Will the Left not be satisfied until the entire population consists of fat people who are missing a limb and aren’t of the same race or gender they were born as? Let’s add icing on the soy cake and say they’re all gluten-intolerant too!
Let me take a stab at the next group- ones with known, communicable medical conditions. In California, it used to be a felony to deliberately give someone HIV without their consent. Not anymore, because of political correctness or social justice or something. Maybe this will come full circle and hurt another leftwing agenda, by making it a civil right to put a bullet inside someone else right next to that HIV. Both are just as lethal.
The scientifically-minded Left that wants to keep us safe and claims that any policy is justified if it saves just one life is trying to make self-harm and ill-health acceptable and encouraged. And they’re winning.
The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other — until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology. – Ayn Rand
That’s a good question. If the Left is as smart as they tell us, surely they know what the consequences of encouraging all of this will be. Are these failed social experiments? Are these efforts to weaken the Western world? Notice that we don’t see them imposing this kind of thing elsewhere in the globe, not even with behaviors that are just plain taboo and don’t involve physically hurting yourself. Look at gay rights- Indiana wanted to pass a bill that’s the same thing Connecticut has, but Indiana is called “homophobic” and other states and even corporations boycott them. Meanwhile, the very same liberals denouncing and boycotting Indiana are promoting havens of gay rights like… Saudi Arabia and Iran. You remember Iran right, where they are so woke that they force women to wear hijab as a sign of solidarity against Islamophobia? Them and their woke buddies in Saudi Arabia who legally execute people for being homosexuals in a culturally tolerant manner that we are not allowed to judge (how come only Americans aren’t allowed to be intolerant anyway? Leftwing news source Daily Beast in that article tells us that we must tolerate Iran executing gays and tolerate Iran’s different ideas on sexuality, yet the Left, if it had its way, would hang Republicans for being different!). It’s almost like the Left hates Western civilization and look for any way to hurt it, while in turn empowering oppressive regimes across the globe (even empowering regimes the Left itself acknowledges to be oppressive).
Or maybe the Left figures that if they take up every cause like this, and encourages everyone to treat whatever little quirk or disease they have as a civil rights issue, they will never lose an election again since everyone will be reliant upon The Party for their personal civil rights matter.