Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I don't even know who to vote for anymore.

At 3/30/12 09:20 PM, Phantox wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeaA8nkiWdk

Santorum almost calls obama a ni gger

Lol wut. How is being anti-war a bad thing?

At 3/30/12 09:33 PM, majormelthesackboy wrote: I don't even know who to vote for anymore.

Ron Paul is a synonym for the restoration of America.

At 3/30/12 09:35 PM, SnoopyChicken wrote:

At 3/30/12 09:20 PM, Phantox wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeaA8nkiWdk

Santorum almost calls obama a ni gger

Lol wut. How is being anti-war a bad thing?

>implying obama isn't pro war

Oh my god, I laughed my ass off when I read his rant about porn. This guy is great. I mean, his sense of humor is so realistic it's almost like he actually MEANS some of the shit he says.

Not even the white nationalists want to support that moron.

At 3/30/12 09:34 PM, Phantox wrote:
>implying obama isn't pro war

This ain't 4chan bud, no matter how hard you try that text isn't going to go green.
I'm not implying Obama is anti-war I'm just wondering why people would think it was a bad thing if he was?

At 3/30/12 09:27 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 3/30/12 09:24 PM, Revo357912 wrote: Three words:
George Whopper Bush

Three words:

Barrack <Insert fast food item that starts with H> Obama.

RasictBassit = Sad Fail

We already knew he was a dumb fuck.

At 3/30/12 09:43 PM, Revo357912 wrote: RasictBassit = Sad Fail

Care to explain why, mister can't spell a name that's right in front of him already spelled out?

At 3/30/12 09:34 PM, Phantox wrote:
>implying obama isn't pro war

>IMPLYING >IMPLYING >IMPLYING >HERF DERF IMPLYING

At 3/30/12 09:47 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 3/30/12 09:43 PM, Revo357912 wrote: RasictBassit = Sad Fail

Care to explain why, mister can't spell a name that's right in front of him already spelled out?

Lets see... who got us into the mess we're in? Oh yeaa! GW Bush. And whose fixed up that mess, if even a tiny bit? Oh yeaa! Obama!

At 3/30/12 09:52 PM, Revo357912 wrote: Lets see... who got us into the mess we're in? Oh yeaa! GW Bush. And whose fixed up that mess, if even a tiny bit? Oh yeaa! Obama!

Let's see.

Who controlled Congress for a 1/4 of Bush's presidency right as everything went to shit? Oh yeah, that's right, Democrats with Obama being one of them. Which group was in charge once things started recovering. Oh yeah, that's right, Republicans.

But then again, I forgot the USA was set up that the PotUS is the one in charge of everything and Congress and SCotUS mean jack shit to the process, let alone the laws set up during a Democrats term that lead to the bubble and shit.

At 3/30/12 09:52 PM, Revo357912 wrote:

At 3/30/12 09:47 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 3/30/12 09:43 PM, Revo357912 wrote: RasictBassit = Sad Fail

Care to explain why, mister can't spell a name that's right in front of him already spelled out?

Lets see... who got us into the mess we're in? Oh yeaa! GW Bush. And whose fixed up that mess, if even a tiny bit? Oh yeaa! Obama!

I thought you were making fun of the misspelling of Barack. Color me unimpressed.

At 3/30/12 09:59 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 3/30/12 09:52 PM, Revo357912 wrote: Lets see... who got us into the mess we're in? Oh yeaa! GW Bush. And whose fixed up that mess, if even a tiny bit? Oh yeaa! Obama!

Let's see.

Who controlled Congress for a 1/4 of Bush's presidency right as everything went to shit? Oh yeah, that's right, Democrats with Obama being one of them. Which group was in charge once things started recovering. Oh yeah, that's right, Republicans.

But then again, I forgot the USA was set up that the PotUS is the one in charge of everything and Congress and SCotUS mean jack shit to the process, let alone the laws set up during a Democrats term that lead to the bubble and shit.

Get your facts straight you ignorant Fool. Republicans controlled congress since 1994. And a lot of people agree with me that Reps controlled congress during the fail-i mean- bush era:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100122124019AA 9Nohd

as for stats:
http://www.dflorig.com/partycontrol.htm

And guess what, things started going shit around 2001, with the whole 9/11 thing and the war started by, guess who, republicans. You got to be a new type of stupid to say bush didn't fail in many ways. Even some Fox News Republicans admitted to that.

At 3/30/12 09:59 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

Who controlled Congress for a 1/4 of Bush's presidency right as everything went to shit? Oh yeah, that's right, Democrats with Obama being one of them. Which group was in charge once things started recovering. Oh yeah, that's right, Republicans.

Actually the senate was Republican majority between 2003 and 2007...

Do research and stop voicing your opinion...

Don't know about the House of Rep. though...

At 3/30/12 10:10 PM, Revo357912 wrote: Get your facts straight you ignorant Fool. Republicans controlled congress since 1994. And a lot of people agree with me that Reps controlled congress during the fail-i mean- bush era:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100122124019AA 9Nohd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2006

Oh, hey there, it looks like Democrats controlled Congress during the last 1/4 of Bush's regime when things started turning tits up like crazy, just like I said. Yay for talking out of your ass!

as for stats:
http://www.dflorig.com/partycontrol.htm

And guess what, things started going shit around 2001, with the whole 9/11 thing and the war started by, guess who, republicans. You got to be a new type of stupid to say bush didn't fail in many ways. Even some Fox News Republicans admitted to that.

HE KICKS IT FROM THE 35
HE MAKES IT
WHAT'S THAT JIM? THE GOAL POSTS TELEPORTED AND HE WASN'T ABLE TO MAKE IT?

Get it. Because you're moving the goal posts.

Either way, the Iraq and Afghanistan war contributed heavily, but Afghanistan was a given, and while I don't believe we should have went to Iraq, at least they got rid of those WMDs. (HURR DURR THEY DIDNT HAVE ANY DESPITE THE SECRET MOVING OF THEM ONLY RECENTLY RELEASED BY WIKILEAKS BUT IM GONNA STICK TO MY GUNS AND KEEP SAYING BUSH LIED SOLDIERS DIED.) When did I ever claim Bush didn't fail in many ways? Him and Obama both fucking suck.

I read a tweet of his saying that all Americans should speak English because "If English was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me." Ignorant moron.

At 3/30/12 10:19 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 3/30/12 10:10 PM, Revo357912 wrote: Get your facts straight you ignorant Fool. Republicans controlled congress since 1994. And a lot of people agree with me that Reps controlled congress during the fail-i mean- bush era:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100122124019AA 9Nohd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2006

Oh, hey there, it looks like Democrats controlled Congress during the last 1/4 of Bush's regime when things started turning tits up like crazy, just like I said. Yay for talking out of your ass!

Yes, You read 2007 as 2001. Uh huh. And Wikipedia too. Now, show me the links they used in Wikipedia to give credibility to the article, and it will be more credible. Didn't they teach you in school, if you ever went, not to use Wikipedia?

At 3/30/12 09:06 PM, j0hnny wrote:

At 3/30/12 09:02 PM, toxisfuckingdumb wrote: american politics has literally degraded into a joke.

satirists don't even fucking have to try anymore.

Oh it gets better. If you think the Republican Party nominations are bad look at who is running as a Green party candidate:

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1299992

None of the parties seem to have anything to offer anymore or take seriously.

I honestly consider everyone running for president this year fucking retarded. Maybe besides Obama, I still have hope for him.

I highly doubt he said all that...

Well... At least Santorum's being honest!

...right?

At 3/30/12 10:23 PM, Revo357912 wrote: Yes, You read 2007 as 2001. Uh huh. And Wikipedia too.

I did? Where did I read 2007 as 2001? The 2006 elections that had that group take office for the last two years (2007-2009) of Bush's term?

Now, show me the links they used in Wikipedia to give credibility to the article, and it will be more credible. Didn't they teach you in school, if you ever went, not to use Wikipedia?

Go to the fucking citation part you lazy fuck. Why is Wikipedia's credibility different then other sites? Wait, you're right. It is. Wikipedia has strict editing guidelines and they frequently mod and admin the shit out of pages making sure everything is factually correct, compared to other websites that don't do that.

At 3/30/12 10:25 PM, 4761 wrote: Well... At least Santorum's being honest!

...right?

Actually I agree.

At least he's not sneaking into power and then gassing every gay he can.

Speaking humorously of course

At 3/30/12 10:25 PM, dlxrevolution wrote: I highly doubt he said all that...

If you watch any of the videos of him talking about anything, you'll understand how it is very likely.

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

At 3/30/12 10:25 PM, dlxrevolution wrote: I highly doubt he said all that...

Google him. He ain't hiding nothing.

At 3/30/12 10:31 PM, Revo357912 wrote: Google him. He ain't hiding nothing.

>Tells others to use a more credible source
>Doesn't use a source

At least he's not sneaking into power and then gassing every gay he can.
Speaking humorously of course

...Now when you say "sneaking" and "gassing"...

God... Why does he have to be so... damn.... stupid?

At 3/30/12 10:27 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 3/30/12 10:23 PM, Revo357912 wrote: Yes, You read 2007 as 2001. Uh huh. And Wikipedia too.

I did? Where did I read 2007 as 2001? The 2006 elections that had that group take office for the last two years (2007-2009) of Bush's term?

When I said "things started going shit in 2001"

Now, show me the links they used in Wikipedia to give credibility to the article, and it will be more credible. Didn't they teach you in school, if you ever went, not to use Wikipedia?

Go to the fucking citation part you lazy fuck. Why is Wikipedia's credibility different then other sites? Wait, you're right. It is. Wikipedia has strict editing guidelines and they frequently mod and admin the shit out of pages making sure everything is factually correct, compared to other websites that don't do that.

Why not post them yourself for everyone to see? I posted everything for you to see.