Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/26/09 08:37 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote:

At 11/25/09 12:35 AM, isanerd wrote: because hes young and lot of the younger people think hes cool although hes a retard

Yeah, the Harvard Education has nothing to do with that.

lol Bush has a Harvard education

and Yale as well

At 11/28/09 01:51 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 11/26/09 08:37 PM, OddlyPoetic wrote:

At 11/25/09 12:35 AM, isanerd wrote: because hes young and lot of the younger people think hes cool although hes a retard

Yeah, the Harvard Education has nothing to do with that.

lol Bush has a Harvard education

and Yale as well

Well unlike bush, Obama's Dad was'nt president so he had to get in the hard way.

well id have to say an old guy that could die any moment whose left the throne on air headed palin, was a 100x worse than obama could ever do.

still they both suck, and even thought an obama nation is an obamanation at least we dont got a half dead geezer and his quarter wit grandaughter palin.

its kinda like an eclipse, its pretty now that we got a black pres, but we dont want to look at it cuz we'll go blind on how much f* up for not voting paul.

im a stupid man, this wont make any sense most likely but i really dont care....

RON PAUL /B/

seriously tho shame on you if you didn't vote for him

Because he is a better president than Bush and it's gonna take Obama a while before he can fix all the damages to the nation that Bush created.

At 11/28/09 11:23 AM, VinnyXY wrote: Because he is a better president than Bush and it's gonna take Obama a while before he can fix all the damages to the nation that Bush created.

Bullshit, he's a complete moron and doesn't know what the fuck he's doing. If we had McCain, everything would be better.

All in all, I was joking. You realize the President has like, no control at all righit?

At 11/24/09 10:37 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: Sarah Palin. That was all the reason I needed not to vote Republican.

Sarah Palin, actually, was all the reason I needed TO vote Republican. Sure, McCain was an old man who tended to be more centrist on most issues, but Palin? Pft. No question where she stood. A die-hard, level-headed, conservative with a real sense of what mattered. Personally, I hope she comes back to run for the presidency. If her platform's the same, she'll get my vote hands down.

At 11/27/09 01:56 AM, Fullsteel wrote:

At 11/26/09 08:59 PM, Qonquerer wrote: Because he's black.

Yeah, pretty much. Mostly African Americans voted for Obama. And African Americans are usually retarded.

What about all the stupid white people who voted for McCain. And stupid white people are usually retarded.

At 11/28/09 11:23 AM, VinnyXY wrote: Because he is a better president than Bush and it's gonna take Obama a while before he can fix all the damages to the nation that Bush created.

haha.

People voted for him because he is a better president.

They voted for him to become president.

haha

A die-hard, level-headed, conservative with a real sense of what mattered.

Yeah! What matters! Like teaching creationism and abstinence-only in schools! You brainwashed born-again.

At 12/2/09 08:05 AM, Kazuhiro wrote:

A die-hard, level-headed, conservative with a real sense of what mattered.

Yeah! What matters! Like teaching creationism and abstinence-only in schools! You brainwashed born-again.

Neither of which is a bad idea. Creationism, with its pseudo-religious undertones and lack of scientific proof, is as viable a theory as the mathematically impossible Evolutionary Theory, and it gives the youth of America an alternative to being spoon-fed a theory that has magically become 'fact' while being called a 'theory'. Personally, I don't know which is worse.

Abstinence is also a smart idea if your trying to completely avoid things like pregnancy (teen or otherwise), STDs, AIDS, and unwanted drama involving exgfs/bfs (whichever your preference, I don't judge).

And I forgive you for calling me brain-washed.

Obama shouldn't have even gotten elected, it's pretty fucking stupid. The only reason he's president is because of all of the young voters aka mass majority of illiterate America (and how much the idea of first black president gave liberals a massive erection as SadisticMonkey pointed out before me) because Obama was nothing but a sweet talker, he's handsome, has an aura of litteracy, but his words mean nothing. Also the mass majority of America didn't like Bush so they frowned upon republican. Obama was never in the military, not even a weekend @ bootcamp. John McCain on the other hand was a prisoner of war in Vietnam (and overall wasn't just blowing sunshine up everyone's ass during the election). Yet Obama is Commander in chief.... pretty peachy and hip isn't it America!

But, Obama's popularity and hype is quickly running out.

I forecast scapegoating and diversion in the next 4 years

At 12/2/09 02:54 PM, BlacklistBurned wrote:

Neither of which is a bad idea.

You've already lost me, but go on.

Creationism, with its pseudo-religious undertones and lack of scientific proof, is as viable a theory as the mathematically impossible Evolutionary Theory

Well for starters, evolution is not mathematically impossible, you clearly got that from someone who knows nothing, we observe it today in may different species (especially those with very short life spans)
Secondly, I do not disagree with creationism being taught in a humanities class or a literature or culturaly oriented classroom. However, in a science class. That's just idiocy. In a science class we need to teach what the experts in the scientific community generally believe (some of which will eventually turn out to be false, but currently they appear to be factual.)

Abstinence is also a smart idea if your trying to completely avoid things like pregnancy (teen or otherwise), STDs, AIDS, and unwanted drama involving exgfs/bfs (whichever your preference, I don't judge).

No, again a bad idea. Our biology is constructed so that we want to reproduce in our teenage years. This is why our sex-drive is so strong then. People over a hundred years ago looked at marriage starting as early as twelve. Even in our parents generation a lot if not most people got married around 18. However today marraige tends to take place around 24-28. Meaning your body has been telling you to reproduce for 10 to 15 years before you are actually suppoed to do it opposed to the 3-5 years from a hundred years ago. Most people do not follow this (the puritans couldn't even follow it as 2/3 of first children were born less than 9 months after marraige) advice because the impulses in our bodeis bodies is so strong. What is best is teaching kids how to be smart. Giving them facts instead of bullshit (and believe me there are a lot of lies and mistruths taught in abstinence only eductation) and allow them to make informed, thought out decisions. If you tell kids that condoms almost never work, then they wont use on and that leads to greater problems.

To Poster above me:

You clearly have no idea about what you are talking about. Yes us young and intellectual were impressed that the presidential candidate could speak and speak well. To be the leader of the free world, we ask that as a requirement. Otherwise you say stupid shit and policies are developed around the stupid shit you say, like Bush. However, that was not the draw of Obama. Nor was it that he was black or good looking. The draw to Obama was that we wanted to reverse the direction that the nation was going in. America had become a Plutonomy and he wanted to give power back to the lower and middle classes.

At 12/4/09 04:04 AM, awkward-silence wrote: The draw to Obama was that we wanted to reverse the direction that the nation was going in.

wht a gud job dat der Obama be doin yeh yeh yeh CHange... sing it wit Me...

At 12/4/09 02:19 AM, carljohnson wrote: Obama shouldn't have even gotten elected, it's pretty fucking stupid. The only reason he's president is because of all of the young voters aka mass majority of illiterate America...Also the mass majority of America didn't like Bush so they frowned upon republican. Obama was never in the military, not even a weekend @ bootcamp. John McCain on the other hand was a prisoner of war in Vietnam (and overall wasn't just blowing sunshine up everyone's ass during the election). Yet Obama is Commander in chief.... pretty peachy and hip isn't it America!

True, McCain is an experienced soldier, and would know military strategy better than Obama. That was one of the reasons I was considering voting for McCain. I didn't agree with all his personal beliefs, and wasn't sure about his economic policy, but he brought valuable experience to the table in a time of war and understood the realities of the situation.

Then he made Sarah Palin his vice. And the minute she opened her mouth, I knew I didn't want her in office. She had no more political experience than Obama, I never heard her talk about how she would handle the issues, and she had a mouth that could spark a war with just about anyone (namely Russia).

There was no way in hell I was taking a chance on Palin. And so McCain lost my vote - because a vote for President is a vote for two people.

At 11/28/09 11:23 AM, VinnyXY wrote: Because he is a better president than Bush and it's gonna take Obama a while before he can fix all the damages to the nation that Bush created.

How was he a good president before he became a president?

And it didn't matter who we elected, Bush was gone anyway.

At 11/24/09 06:20 PM, ilovemynamelots wrote: Why do you think people elected Barak Obama?

Because everybody voted for there own weomen mostly voted for a girl prez and white a old white prez and -BLACKS- and there is alot of them because so called black pepole have bigger *COUGH (PENIS) COUGH* so everybody has sex with them more black pepole -_-''

Because F.D. Roosevelt is dead?

He's black and the democrats crossed sides to ensure the republicans had a candidate that most republicans wouldn't even want.

Democracy is the biggest clusterfuck in the political world.

But hey, it works.

At 12/4/09 02:19 AM, carljohnson wrote: Obama shouldn't have even gotten elected, it's pretty fucking stupid. The only reason he's president is because of all of the young voters aka mass majority of illiterate America (and how much the idea of first black president gave liberals a massive erection as SadisticMonkey pointed out before me) because Obama was nothing but a sweet talker, he's handsome, has an aura of litteracy, but his words mean nothing. Also the mass majority of America didn't like Bush so they frowned upon republican. Obama was never in the military, not even a weekend @ bootcamp. John McCain on the other hand was a prisoner of war in Vietnam (and overall wasn't just blowing sunshine up everyone's ass during the election). Yet Obama is Commander in chief.... pretty peachy and hip isn't it America!

But, Obama's popularity and hype is quickly running out.

I forecast scapegoating and diversion in the next 4 years

This is not 1860 dumbass, in order to be a good president you don't have to be in the military. Look at Abraham Lincoln, he went to war during the Blackhawk wars, but he didn't have a shit idea what he was doing, McCain on the other hand was just a soldier, not a commander, so Abe Lincoln would be a more qualified president then him. Think of all the Great Presidents during the 20th Century, Franklin Roosevelt was Secertary of the Navy during WWI and after, Theodore was a Calvary Colonel, so they had experiance in commanding troops. Now Obama has none of this, but in the present day it isn't even needed, as we simply don't know how to fight who we are fighting in Afghanistan.

At 12/5/09 01:27 AM, Warforger wrote: as we simply don't know how to fight who we are fighting in Afghanistan.

I'll tell you how to fight in Afghanistan and it is cheaper than a troop surge.

Build a Playground for children, the Taliban will destroy it.
Build a Hospital, the Tabliban will bring it down.
Build a school that promotes the education of women, the Tabliban will blow it up.
And when the Taliban have accomplished their goal, repeat what you have done.

The reason soldiers loose heart in a conflict is because they begin to contemplate that they are not actually the "good guy". In afghanistan the people themselves do not view us as the good guy. So we need to take that role away from the Taliban (and we don't need Karzai in office either). If we build a playground and the taliban blows it up killing 4 children, or the taliban attacks a hospital full of wounded and sick afghanis, or a school rich with young boys and girls they will loose power. Because the Taliban is no longer the good saving the Afghan people from evil. Before long the Afghans will deliver us who we want as a plea for continued support.

At 12/2/09 02:54 PM, BlacklistBurned wrote:

At 12/2/09 08:05 AM, Kazuhiro wrote:

A die-hard, level-headed, conservative with a real sense of what mattered.

Yeah! What matters! Like teaching creationism and abstinence-only in schools! You brainwashed born-again.

Neither of which is a bad idea. Creationism, with its pseudo-religious undertones and lack of scientific proof, is as viable a theory

No it's not, it has NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF WHATSOEVER.

as the mathematically impossible Evolutionary Theory,

1. The maths actually SUPPORTS evolution. We know the rate at which mutations occur. we take two different species who, according to the fossil record, are believed to have diverged from a common ancestor. we measure the genetic difference between the two modern day species. We use the rate of mutations to calculate how long ago the species diverged, and guess what? This matches up unbelievably well with the estimated time of divergence based on the positions in the fossil record.

2. if you're saying creationism of the same amount of viability as evolution, and also that evolution is "impossible", then you're claiming that creationism too is impossible.

and it gives the youth of America an alternative to being spoon-fed a theory

there are THOUSANDS of books on evolution out there, all of which provide a simply staggering amount of irrefutable evidence to support evolution. teh evidence is out there are amazingly accessible, so no one needs to be spoon fed.

And I find it AMAZINGLY laughable that the only science which you claim is wrong and is being "spoon fed" just so happens to be the theory that goes against your religion. Ha!

that has magically become 'fact' while being called a 'theory'. Personally, I don't know which is worse.

You have NO IDEA what theory means in a scientific concept. No matter how much evidence we gather for volution, no matter how much we prove it and how certain we are it is true, it will always be called a theory, because calling it a theory is in no way whatsoever indicative that we are uncertain about it's validity.

Abstinence is also a smart idea if your trying to completely avoid things like pregnancy (teen or otherwise), STDs, AIDS, and unwanted drama involving exgfs/bfs (whichever your preference, I don't judge).

Smart idea? It doesn't work!

Every study you can find will show you that teaching abstinence will, if anything, make kids prolong from having sex around nine months longer than if they weren't taught it, and when they do have sex, they're far more likely to get pregnant because they have not been advised how to have sex safely.
Similarly, if the person who had been practising abstinence has sex with someone who has not, they again won't know about safe sex and will be more likely to contract an STI.

At 12/5/09 04:10 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: 1. The maths actually SUPPORTS evolution. We know the rate at which mutations occur. we take two different species who, according to the fossil record, are believed to have diverged from a common ancestor. we measure the genetic difference between the two modern day species. We use the rate of mutations to calculate how long ago the species diverged, and guess what? This matches up unbelievably well with the estimated time of divergence based on the positions in the fossil record.

I'll ignore the "maths" part and focus on the rest.

It's impossible to determine the rate that "mutations occur" as you're putting it forth. Mutations occur daily. This doesn't let us know how long it would take for a squirrel to become a bat, or how such a thing would actually happen.

2. if you're saying creationism of the same amount of viability as evolution, and also that evolution is "impossible", then you're claiming that creationism too is impossible.

That makes no logical sense. Try again?

there are THOUSANDS of books on evolution out there, all of which provide a simply staggering amount of irrefutable evidence to support evolution. teh evidence is out there are amazingly accessible, so no one needs to be spoon fed.

And I find it AMAZINGLY laughable that the only science which you claim is wrong and is being "spoon fed" just so happens to be the theory that goes against your religion. Ha!

By Darwins own theory, evolution is wrong. None of the intermediary species survived. Therefore none were fit. Yet they all survived the perfect amount of time to create the next one...then died. And they left no evidence of them ever existing.

Let's also combine this with the simple fact that the evolutionists theories about how life have started were all proved wrong.

Smart idea? It doesn't work!

People have been getting pregnant and getting STDs without sex?

Show your work, kid.

Every study you can find will show you that teaching abstinence will, if anything, make kids prolong from having sex around nine months longer than if they weren't taught it, and when they do have sex, they're far more likely to get pregnant because they have not been advised how to have sex safely.
Similarly, if the person who had been practising abstinence has sex with someone who has not, they again won't know about safe sex and will be more likely to contract an STI.

Of course none of this is true. As even England reported recently, their sex ed classes increased both the rate of sexual activity and the pregnancy rate.

Having gone through both abstinence only and "comprehensive" sex ed, I can say that abstinence is the better course. It was far more informative and accurate than any comprehensive class I took.

At 12/7/09 05:21 AM, WolvenBear wrote:
By Darwins own theory, evolution is wrong. None of the intermediary species survived. Therefore none were fit.

How does this contradict evolution? The unfit die out, and the fit survive to the next generation, carrying their genetic material with them. That's what "survival of the fittest" means.

Yet they all survived the perfect amount of time to create the next one...then died.

Because the environment in which they lived was suitable, until gradual changes to said environment made it no longer fit for their kind. Those who adapted to the environment survived, and those who remained the same did not. This process takes hundreds of thousand of years.

And they left no evidence of them ever existing.

I'll see your claim of no evidence and raise you one fossil.

At 12/7/09 07:20 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: At 12/7/09 05:21 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Oi, you two, take your Evolution vs. Creationism argument to a different thread. This is Obama we're talking about.

And to answer the OP's question: Because he's charismatic and knows what people like and how to say it.

At 12/7/09 07:30 PM, CaptainChip wrote: Oi, you two, take your Evolution vs. Creationism argument to a different thread. This is Obama we're talking about.

I actually intended to write that at the end of my post, but it slipped my mind. Apologies.

At 11/26/09 08:31 PM, Naysly wrote:

At 11/24/09 07:05 PM, basherboy357 wrote: I wont make any implications, but 98% of the African American voters in my state voted for Obama.

I won't make any implications, but the person to whom I'm responding is a complete and utterly racist idiot

I'm not going to assume that he was racist over a statistical fact until he says, "I hate black people."
He was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of racism toward blacks, when blacks are just as racist toward whites. It's the race card that started that dumb Tea Party Movement. Racism exists on both sides and just calling someone racist over a statistical fact is utterly idiotic. Since race is the same for black and white(human), using the race card is just biggotry.

At 12/7/09 08:18 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: when people hear the word "change", they always assume the best. but they need to remember that virtually every horrible leader in history (most notably hitler) have also won on campaigns of change.

So? Franklin Deleanor Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson all did the same thing, but were widely regarded as good presidents.

At 12/2/09 07:09 AM, Shnam wrote:

At 11/27/09 01:56 AM, Fullsteel wrote:

At 11/26/09 08:59 PM, Qonquerer wrote: Because he's black.

Yeah, pretty much. Mostly African Americans voted for Obama. And African Americans are usually retarded.

What about all the stupid white people who voted for McCain. And stupid white people are usually retarded.

people from USA are usually retarded in general upgrade to USB hasmmore memmory at least
but in general peolple are retarded if not in general at some point in the day