Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/22/10 03:10 PM, Memorize wrote: First of all, I don't see how showing off a simple piece of paper is equal to dropping your pants, lol.

Second, I do believe he is a natural born citizen. I'm just saying that if I were in his position, I'd just show it off and rub their faces in it (I'm still talking about the certificate, right?)

1) The birth certificate was released to the public during the election cycle
2) Obama doesn't care about birthers' sentiments because they would be a distraction. Unless these people were actually getting in the way of his policy, taking time to focus on them would only create a media frenzy about a topic he doesn't care about when he'd rather be drawing attention to his cuases, which is why he doesn't do it. Its a waste of time since he is trying to accomplish things.

At 4/22/10 03:36 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

taking time to focus on them would only create a media frenzy about a topic he doesn't care about when he'd rather be drawing attention to his cuases, which is why he doesn't do it. Its a waste of time since he is trying to accomplish things.

Better that he wastes his time than continue Bush's stupidity.

At 4/22/10 02:31 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: To all on the Left who think this is an issue: stop drawing the fucking race card and just argue the god damn issues.

Because, you know, claiming that he was born in Africa/Indonesia or is a secret Muslim is not racially motivated AT ALL. Nope, not one bit. They would probably have the same exact amount of scrutiny if Biden was the president, amirite?

his economic policy ALONE is proof of that much

Oh, the economic policy that turned the economy on a rise, after a dive it took after eight years of republican management that put key functions on the mercy of private business that only cares for its own profit rather than keeping the infrastructure running.

At 4/22/10 02:43 AM, Memorize wrote:

You know what I don't get though?

So many jokes...so little desire to be that much of a dick. Haha, just playing with ya.

Why doesn't Obama just flash his birth certificate in front of a camera man for 5 seconds? That would shut em' up, no?

Why even give them the credence on it? Why acknowledge the moronic fringe and be like "see that? We got to him!' Same reason Bush wouldn't address 9/11 Truthers, why acknowledge a group that can't prove their patently ridiculous claims? Best to just ignore it and do important things like the job he was elected to do.

I don't think he's a Muslim. Just a crazy Christian. Which makes me wonder why the anti-religious crowd here doesn't complain about Obama for it.

Because there's not a lot of evidence of Obama's religion effecting his decisions or policies? Unless I've missed something here beyond the Reverend Wright thing from the campaign.

At 4/22/10 09:02 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Reverend Wright

Funny thing, I think Reverend Wright is one of the coolest things to happen to the US political scene in a while.

America's Chickens are coming home to roost!

At 4/22/10 02:43 AM, Memorize wrote:

You know what I don't get though?

Why doesn't Obama just flash his birth certificate in front of a camera man for 5 seconds? That would shut em' up, no?

probably cause he doesn't want to acknowledge claims that are obviously inane conspiracies

people literally thought Bush was a half-lizard. was he gonna say "i'm not a lizard" live on some press conference? no, because:

1) it's a ridiculous claim
2) acknowledging the claim would fuel the fire further
3) he had real issues to deal with

say, you're a birther, and you don't believe the millions of web sources providing his actual birth certificate. him showing it might not even convince you more, it'd probably just give you less trust towards him. i mean, the guy who you believe is lying to you 100% and is planning to ruin your life forever might not be the best source to you. same if Bush just said to a truther "a plane flew into the tower" and expected a happy ending after that.

in the end, i think it's just a point to do nothing more than ignore, really

At 4/22/10 04:39 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: Oh, the economic policy that turned the economy on a rise, after a dive it took after eight years of republican management that put key functions on the mercy of private business that only cares for its own profit rather than keeping the infrastructure running.

Exactly.
We had 8 years of proof, and although Obama's policies aren't popular-- it's at least taking us somewhat out of the slump of things.

this is the reason why I hate the tea party douchebags. They misappropriate a historical sentiment to further their cause: to put back the Republicans into power. This isn't a tax thing-- For 8 years, Bush had risen taxes (and significantly I read an article last night-- wonder if I can find that again.) Yet, when Obama does this, Oh Good Lawdy! Protest the Great Tax Satan!

I remember watching, several months ago, and seeing this tea party bitch, literally crying, and saying "Where's my America? I want my America back!"

That was my eyerollie moment, because the stupid bitch wasn't much older than me, and I kept thinking... mmmm... 8 years of Bush, she's experienced. A shit hole. Clinton years-- despite of rough spots-- really wonderful years to be a teen (so much friggin energy and hope and boom of eagerness)-- Bush Sr... she was a kid (and Bush Sr. had to rise taxes.) The only time she could had ever known America being the old state of grace was when it was in charge of Democratic powers during Clinton Years-- UNLESS she remember Reagan, but I doubt it if I can't remember Reagan.

Yet, still she prescribed to that ideal. She's entitled to it, but what a fucking stupid bitch nonetheless for making such stupid grandiose statements.

"What happened to my America?"
Republicanism since 1990. That's what happened!

At 4/23/10 07:09 AM, fli wrote:

Exactly.
We had 8 years of proof, and although Obama's policies aren't popular-- it's at least taking us somewhat out of the slump of things.

Correction: Driving us deeper into the slump of things.

I'm not sure how you can cure a slump by continuing policies that put us in the slump to begin with.

this is the reason why I hate the tea party douchebags. They misappropriate a historical sentiment to further their cause: to put back the Republicans into power.

I'm not a protester. I'm not affiliated with the tea party people or the anti-war protests.

But you should also keep in mind that these protests started under Bush after the bank bailout.

That, and the fact that new polls have shown us that these people are upper income, educated individuals; half of whom believe the Government shouldn't be pushing any values (something I thought you of all people would love).

I remember watching, several months ago, and seeing this tea party bitch, literally crying, and saying "Where's my America? I want my America back!"

I remember watching politicians and media pundits label them racists even after it was a pro-Universal Health Care union workers beating up and shouting racial slurs a black guy, caught on camera.

"What happened to my America?"
Republicanism since 1990. That's what happened!

Why is it that you can always blame the Republicans, regardless of whose in power?

Reagan had a Democratic Congress. Who to blame? Reagan.
Clinton had a Republican Congress. Who to blame? Republican Congress.
Bush had a Democratic Congress since 2006. Who to blame? Bush.
Democrats currently have near super-majorities in both houses and control the white house. Who blame? The Republican minority.

It's like how people complain about the deficits under Reagan while praising them under Clinton. Despite the fact that they BOTH added an identical $1.5 Trillion to our national debt over an 8 year period.

At 4/23/10 08:59 PM, Memorize wrote: Correction: Driving us deeper into the slump of things.

No, the economy is on a up turn, haven't you paid attention?

But you should also keep in mind that these protests started under Bush after the bank bailout.

Yes, but the tea party label came about, and the protests grew bigger on the Obama term, and that's when the "socialism" and such banners came out.

half of whom believe the Government shouldn't be pushing any values

One can believe that and still act like an ass, and also be complete wrong on facts.

The tea party people claim to be for democracy, but at the same time, violently oppose reforms the majority of americans want (if you read the polls).

I remember watching politicians and media pundits label them racists

Relevant to the part you repplied to, how?

even after it was a pro-Universal Health Care union workers beating up and shouting racial slurs a black guy, caught on camera.

Citation needed.

At 4/24/10 01:20 AM, JohnnyWang wrote:

At 4/23/10 08:59 PM, Memorize wrote:

No, the economy is on a up turn, haven't you paid attention?

It's the creation of another bubble that will eventually burst.

Didn't you pay attention from 2003-2008?

Yes, but the tea party label came about, and the protests grew bigger on the Obama term, and that's when the "socialism" and such banners came out.

You expected any different when he presents a Trillion Dollar stimulus after voting in favor of Bush's Trillion Dollar bailout?

The tea party people claim to be for democracy, but at the same time, violently oppose reforms the majority of americans want (if you read the polls).

Violently?

The only violence so far has come from pro-Obama supporters attacking tea party people.

A tea party participant got one of his fingers bitten off while a black guy was given a beatdown and had racial slurs hurled at him by pro-universal health care union members.

And yet it's the Tea Party people who are violent with their staging of protests and carrying signs?

You really need to get your priorities straight.

Citation needed.

Google and Youtube are hard to use.

At 4/24/10 02:04 AM, Memorize wrote: You really need to get your priorities straight.

This just in: Memorize doesn't know what the word "priorities" means.

At 4/24/10 02:14 AM, Musician wrote:

At 4/24/10 02:04 AM, Memorize wrote: You really need to get your priorities straight.

This just in: Memorize doesn't know what the word "priorities" means.

Btw, how's that Capitalism argument you're losing?

At 4/24/10 02:04 AM, Memorize wrote: It's the creation of another bubble that will eventually burst.

Economy works on a wave patter anyway.

Didn't you pay attention from 2003-2008?

There's a difference between creating economic growwth by letting business do wahtever they want (like give loans people can't pay), and steacy investments.

Violently?

Well, mostly I meant in rhetoric.

The only violence so far has come from pro-Obama supporters attacking tea party people.

Yes, no violence from the opposition, at all

Also, the Tea Party is vary of its public image. Just because they practise caution doesn't mean there aren't a lot of racist elements inside the movement, need I remind you of the Obama Witchdoctor plackards? And the simple fact is, that when ever in the past, a democrat president would propose universal healthcare, the reaction wasn't this big.

At 4/24/10 03:22 AM, JohnnyWang wrote:

Economy works on a wave patter anyway.

And why does it do that?

There's a difference between creating economic growwth by letting business do wahtever they want (like give loans people can't pay), and steacy investments.

And yet the only reason why those banks could lend those loans was because our Central Bank, created by the Government, set interest rates at 1%, then 0%.

All while our Congress pushed for low income loans while our Federal Reserve acted as lender of last resort (ie. If you get into trouble, we'll bail you out).

Sounds like a Government created problem to me.

Hey, that partially explains our wave pattern!

Also, the Tea Party is vary of its public image. Just because they practise caution doesn't mean there aren't a lot of racist elements inside the movement, need I remind you of the Obama Witchdoctor plackards?

Several problems.

1) How can you call it racism when the Tea Party people do it, but not when the anti-war people did the exact same thing?

2) Just because people put up a racial image, does not mean they themselves are racists. It only means that they are attempting to find the most negative image about someone.

For instance, in my last example I posted about how a bunch of Pro-Universal HC Union guys beat up a black man while hurling racial slurs at him.

It's not that they were racists. It's that they were pissed at someone not agreeing with them.

But my point then was: How can you call the Tea Party people a bunch of racists when, so far, the only "racial" violence was against the Black Tea Party guy who didn't support Universal Health Care?

Not to mention recent video by NBC.

And the simple fact is, that when ever in the past, a democrat president would propose universal healthcare, the reaction wasn't this big.

When Clinton proposed it...

1) Were we in a recession with real unemployment nearing 20%?
2) Did we recently spend $1 Trillion to bail out the banks?
3) Did we pass a $1 Trillion stimulus?

Of course there's going to be a bigger outrage today. Why? Because we're in a major recession where people are worried about losing their jobs.

I swear, it's impossible to win.

"America will never elect a black president because they're racists!"
*Obama is elected with highest approval of any modern President aside from Jimmy Carter.*
*Obama's approval goes down to 44%*
"OMG! America's racist!"

Here's something that speaks volumes to me:

John Sidney McCain III turned in a certificate of live birth from the Panama Canal Zone. At first disputed, but quickly accepted, since naval bases are U.S. soil. Just about everyone was fine with that.

Barrack Hussein (you see where this is going) Obama II turned in a certificate of live birth from Hawaii, and they even dug up the birth announcement from the Miami Star. It sprouted a nativist movement.

I see nothing off key about that...

At 4/24/10 01:43 PM, Patton3 wrote:

I see nothing off key about that...

The difference being:

-McCain didn't win.

What purpose would there be for those birthers against McCain to continue complaining when he's not even President?

At 4/19/10 04:10 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: think it's less racist to say "He's a Muslim! Impeach him!" vs. "He's black! Impeach him!"

Islam is not a race or ethnicity. It would be religious discrimination, not racial discrimination .

At 4/24/10 02:01 PM, Memorize wrote:

The difference being:

-McCain didn't win.

What purpose would there be for those birthers against McCain to continue complaining when he's not even President?

That would be a good point if the birthers existed only after the election.
As for them having a purpose, he is still a senator with decades in politics.

At 4/24/10 02:01 PM, Memorize wrote: The difference being:

-McCain didn't win.

No, the real difference being, the democrat won. I'm not saying the left doesn't have it's crazies, but they tend to not be as loud in their bullshit as the right often is.

What purpose would there be for those birthers against McCain to continue complaining when he's not even President?

I don't think they would have even if they did. I think they're complaining that the guy they didn't like won. It's people treating politics like their favorite sports team, if my team doesn't win, I'm going to make up whatever excuse necessary to bag on them and bring them down till my team wins again. I don't believe for a second that anyone would have complained about McCain's Presidency based on a "birther" type issue because this is completely a right win movement that is sparked by a left wing victory. I think in the end you see that too and it's just you arguing to be contrary again as seems to be your general tact.

At 4/24/10 05:07 PM, KingAdrock wrote: Islam is not a race or ethnicity. It would be religious discrimination, not racial discrimination .

My apologies, I don't think it necessarily disregards the point I was trying to make though does it? Allow me however to rephrase though so the waters don't muddy over my mistake:

It's better in their mind to be religiously discriminatory then to be racially discriminatory. We can't be racially discriminatory and get support, so hey, let's be racially discriminatory because we figure there's a larger base with an anti-Muslim sentiment in the "post-9/11 world"

At 4/24/10 10:36 PM, Patton3 wrote:

That would be a good point if the birthers existed only after the election.
As for them having a purpose, he is still a senator with decades in politics.

But it wouldn't be illegal for him to be a Senator under those conditions...

At 4/25/10 12:19 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

No, the real difference being, the democrat won. I'm not saying the left doesn't have it's crazies, but they tend to not be as loud in their bullshit as the right often is.

Where the FUCK have you been after the 2000 election?

Where the FUCK have you been after the AWOL charges?

I think in the end you see that too and it's just you arguing to be contrary again as seems to be your general tact.

Whatever makes you feel better when you sleep, LOL!

At 4/25/10 12:59 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/25/10 12:19 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

No, the real difference being, the democrat won. I'm not saying the left doesn't have it's crazies, but they tend to not be as loud in their bullshit as the right often is.

Where the FUCK have you been after the 2000 election?

Where the FUCK have you been after the AWOL charges?

Do you have some way you can prove that the crazies on the left are crazier than the crazies on the right, other than your own personal impression of it? Something concrete, objective and measurable? For instance, something like the amount of death threats received by each president?

And while I won't deny left wing protestors tend to get violent (usually the black bloc), they don't a. carry loaded weapons, permit or not, to protests b. aren't endorced by members of the Democartic party, or any of the major news companies.

At 4/25/10 09:22 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

Do you have some way you can prove that the crazies on the left are crazier than the crazies on the right, other than your own personal impression of it? Something concrete, objective and measurable? For instance, something like the amount of death threats received by each president?

Have any of these crazies on the Right thrown solid objects at the President's passing vehicle?

So once again, let me make sure I get this straight...

Crazy Lefties:

-Signs of Bush as Hitler
-Signs calling Bush a fascist
-Signs saying "I'm here to kill the President"
-Throwing objects at the President's passing vehicle
-Accusing him of going AWOL during Vietnam
-Accuse him of intentionally stealing BOTH Presidential elections
-Bite the fingers off a protesting tea party goer.
-Beat up a black guy while shouting racial slurs at him for being against Universal Health Care

Crazies on the Right (those damn tea party people!)

-Signs calling Obama a Socialist
-Signs saying he's in bed with Wallstreet
-Signs saying he's having the Government take over Health Care.

Wow! You're right! Even though those dreaded crazy tea party people haven't ganged up in a mob to beat anyone up yet like those crazy lefties have: THEY'RE EXACTLY ALIKE!

HOLY SHIT!

At 4/25/10 02:40 PM, JohnnyWang wrote: And while I won't deny left wing protestors tend to get violent (usually the black bloc), they don't a. carry loaded weapons, permit or not, to protests b. aren't endorced by members of the Democartic party, or any of the major news companies.

Tea Party people are endorsed by major news companies?
Nanci Pelosi and Obama didn't attack Bush on the war and dip into the anti-war fever?

Oh and btw, have fun with the two videos. Watch the first one, then the second.

Footage from NBC

Uneditted footage!

You mean:

Crazy Lefties:
-Signs of Bush as Hitler
-Signs calling Bush a fascist
-Signs saying "I'm here to kill the President"
-Throwing objects at the President's passing vehicle
-Accusing him of going AWOL during Vietnam
-Accuse him of intentionally stealing BOTH Presidential elections
-Bite the fingers off a protesting tea party goer.
-Beat up a black guy while shouting racial slurs at him for being against Universal Health Care

Crazies on the Right (those damn tea party people!)

-Signs calling Obama a Socialist
-Signs saying he's in bed with Wallstreet
-Signs saying he's having the Government take over Health Care.
-Signs of him with a Hitler mustache
-Signs saying "get you government hands off my Medicare"
-Call him a Muslim
-Against education
-want less government control AND abortion to be illegal
-call him racist

Yes, they both have their crazies. But I would like to make the point that Bush Jr. was a terrible President who started an illegal war and ruined our economy. I can see why people would hate him. But, what has Obama done that is so terrible?

Are Tea Party Members Racist? Some of them probably. Pre-obama Anti-war protesters probably had a few Marxists in their ranks so i think it balances out.

Are Tea Party Members interested in reinstating a Republican Neo-Conservative Regime? My guess is less than half of them are. I believe a Rasmussen poll stated that More tea party members would support a tea party candidate than a Republican party candidate, likewise, according to the same or a similar poll, as many TP members felt that Ron Paul exemplified their movement as Sarah Palin. There's no evidence as far as i can see that the Tea party is more anti-obama or anti-democrat than they are anti-government.

That being said I think it's entirely possible that the tea party could be USED to reinstate a republican Regime. I'm guessing republicans will gain more seats in the senate, But I don't think a Vanilla republican, a Mitt Romney or a Dick Cheney is going to run for president in 2012 with the strong support of the Tea party.

But anyway this whole tea party thing is hardly surprising. What was it that made bush unpopular?

- Long Drawn Out and undeclared wars
- Patriot Act, Waterboarding, Gitmo
- Irresponsible Fiscal Policy
- Massive increases in federal/executive power

Thus FAR Obama hasn't really touched on these issues, so yes I'm not surprised his popularity is dropping.

At 4/25/10 04:34 PM, Ultimate-Collector wrote:

Yes, they both have their crazies. But I would like to make the point that Bush Jr. was a terrible President who started an illegal war and ruined our economy. I can see why people would hate him. But, what has Obama done that is so terrible?

Not sure how many times I have to repeat this...

-Bush passed a Giant Stimulus in 2008 to hedge off the recession (recession hit anyway)
-Obama passed a bigger stimulus in 2009 (just 1 year later)

-Bush gave us the Patriot Act
-Obama (after raging against the Patriot Act) quietly extended it on a Friday Evening.

-Bush gave us FISA
-Obama (after raging against FISA) Votted in favor of it

-Bush asked for money to bail out the banks
-Obama voted to give him the money to bail out the banks

-Bush bailed out the auto industry.
-Obama gave the auto industry more money

-Bush nominated possibly the biggest failure of a fed chair in history, Ben Bernanke
-Obama renominated Ben Bernanke

-Bush starts wars in the middle east
-Obama continues wars in the middle east (withdrawing from Iraq isn't any faster and he's double on Afghanistan)

-Bush sends drones to kill targets on the Pakistani Border
-Obama sends more drones on Pakistani border in 1 year than Bush did in all his 8

-Bush suspended habaeus corpus
-Obama claims he can still suspend it for certain people

-Bush expands medicare to prescription drugs
-Obama's recent health care package!

I mean, for crying out loud: How are they any different?

At 4/25/10 04:22 PM, Memorize wrote: Crazies on the Right (those damn tea party people!)

-Signs calling Obama a Socialist
-Signs saying he's in bed with Wallstreet
-Signs saying he's having the Government take over Health Care.

Wow! You're right! Even though those dreaded crazy tea party people haven't ganged up in a mob to beat anyone up yet like those crazy lefties have: THEY'RE EXACTLY ALIKE!

You're being purposely dense.

Obama as Hitler, Obama as the Joker from Batman, Obamacare "just like the Nazis".
You're intentionally ignoring evidence to make a point.....as usual.....

Pull your head out of your ass.

At 4/23/10 07:09 AM, fli wrote: this is the reason why I hate the tea party douchebags. They misappropriate a historical sentiment to further their cause: to put back the Republicans into power. This isn't a tax thing-- For 8 years, Bush had risen taxes (and significantly I read an article last night-- wonder if I can find that again.) Yet, when Obama does this, Oh Good Lawdy! Protest the Great Tax Satan!

Not about taxes. It's about the expansion of government control and reach. Not really about taxes anyway, although my complaint about the Tea Party movement is they've gone too damn far from their base.

Yet, still she prescribed to that ideal. She's entitled to it, but what a fucking stupid bitch nonetheless for making such stupid grandiose statements.

Yes. Some people are complete idiots. Some people make stupid, idiotic comments, believing themselves to be more clever and intelligent than they really are.

"What happened to my America?"
Republicanism since 1990. That's what happened!

Case in point.

I think they should make a law where the president isn't allowed to tell his religion. Then the best man would win not the one with the right religion...

At 4/26/10 12:26 AM, darkrchaos wrote: I think they should make a law where the president isn't allowed to tell his religion. Then the best man would win not the one with the right religion...

I agree with this completely. Because really...why should you care? The policies the candidate touts should be all that matters.