Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Fox news is making references to the 3am phone call already. Interesting.

---

Ok. Time to address something......Even if Obama's birth certificate is true, he left the country twice didn't he? He is a Naturalized citizen if thats true. He can't be president if that's true!

---

Man, Obama speech made me tear up a little, expressly the part of the 106 year old lady.

---

At 11/5/08 12:19 AM, LordJaric wrote: Man, Obama speech made me tear up a little, expressly the part of the 106 year old lady.

I hope he wrote it himself...he's gonna need people calming skills when the people start rioting.

Just the facts....

---

In order to lighten the mood for us conservatives, here is Howard stern on whether or not race played a factor and if people know what the fuck their talking about.

linkie

---

At 11/4/08 11:54 PM, hawkkid777 wrote: Ok. Time to address something......Even if Obama's birth certificate is true, he left the country twice didn't he? He is a Naturalized citizen if thats true. He can't be president if that's true!

You can still leave the country and be a born citizen. You just have to be born here, and have lived here for a certain amount of time (I don't remember how long).

---

America has it's first muslim president?

About time, I can't believe it took them 7 years after their hostile take over of America.

---

Back from a celebration. This is by far the greatest day to be an American. At least for me. Bout damn time.

---

At 11/5/08 12:43 AM, Shaun wrote: America has it's first muslim president?

About time, I can't believe it took them 7 years after their hostile take over of America.

Are you trying to be funny or are you just special

---

At 11/5/08 12:53 AM, Mast3rMind wrote: This is by far the greatest day to be an American.

Agreed.

Wins for the Democrats - Barack Obama as President, gain of 6 seats in the Senate, retained majority in the House.

That'll do donkey. That'll do.

Get it, cause the Democrat's symbol is a donkey hurr hurr hurr

---

At 11/5/08 12:43 AM, Shaun wrote:

About time, I can't believe it took them 7 years after their hostile take over of America.

Oh I see, so a Republican in office for 8 years allowed such a takeover.

---

At 11/4/08 11:05 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 11/4/08 11:00 PM, Elfer wrote: CNN is now projecting an overall win for Obama.

Yep, it looks like Obama has secured the victory, not a surprise, but still history.

Regardless of policy for a second folks, let's all take a moment to realize that this country has now FINALLY lived out it's creed, all men are created equal, a black man will hold the presidency of the united states (barring massive fuckery)

You make a statement with a preface of: "Regardless of policy"? What a fuckin' joke. YOU are the reason this country is going to fail. You probably voted FOR a black man just to get him in the history books. I guess having a far-left socialist in office won't be THAT bad, right? I hate this country right now. People are so damned uneducated. Political correctness and reverse racism FTW!!!! *scoff*

-Joel

P.S. Martin Luther King needs to be turned back over. Somebody dig him up.

---

Judging by how the votes are sitting it appears that Obama will have 367 electoral votes and McCain will have 171 electoral votes. Though that could easily change, the Missouri race is getting closer, but regardless:

---

At 11/5/08 01:38 AM, jrhager84 wrote: You make a statement with a preface of: "Regardless of policy"? What a fuckin' joke. YOU are the reason this country is going to fail. You probably voted FOR a black man just to get him in the history books. I guess having a far-left socialist in office won't be THAT bad, right? I hate this country right now. People are so damned uneducated. Political correctness and reverse racism FTW!!!! *scoff*

-Joel

America wasn't going to be run any better under McCain's policies. History proves that.

P.S. Martin Luther King needs to be turned back over. Somebody dig him up.

Now While MLK was Republican, it was then when Republicans were progressive with a mind set of today's Democrats. Try and tell me I'm wrong, history will see to it that I'm right.

---

At 11/5/08 02:30 AM, Mast3rMind wrote:

America wasn't going to be run any better under McCain's policies. History proves that.

Elaborate.

Now While MLK was Republican, it was then when Republicans were progressive with a mind set of today's Democrats. Try and tell me I'm wrong, history will see to it that I'm right.

Republicans today are for globalization and using nuclear power which is the cleanest, safest, most reliable and most efficient source of energy we have. They favor neoconservatism, which has been shown to be our best, but certainly not our most popular, foreign affair policy. They favor neoliberalism, which is easily the best economic policy the world has ever seen (India after 1991?, China?, Clinton/Bush NAFTA?, Reaganomics?)

The democrats are against globalization, for increasing tariffs, against neoliberalism/neoconservatism, and you call this progressive? History and economic theory sees you wrong.

---

At 11/4/08 06:56 PM, Memorize wrote: First of all, Vietnam, Korea, and Iraq (ect.) were a mess long before the US ever entered those areas.

So rushing in all guns blazing doesn't ever make a situation worse? Of course not.

:Starting with Britain and France taking over that land after WWI and expoiting it for recources before handing it back after WWII, which allowed Stalin to spread a Soviet Influence across several of those areas.

I don't ever recall Stalin spreading a Soviet Influence over Britain. Besides, you only came to join in because the Japanese were dumb enough to pick a fight with you at Pearl Harbour.

Secondly, considering that it's the soldiers being killed and THEY are the ones speaking out against a set withdrawl, shouldn't we be listening to them rather than a politician?

Sure, they are entitled to opinions as much as any other man, but on that point so am I.

At 11/4/08 07:01 PM, DariusR wrote:

At 11/4/08 06:38 PM, Coop83 wrote:

Oh and if McCain gets in, we could invade other countries, like Vietnam, to clear up that mess that the US made the first time... wasn't that was Dubya did for Iraq?

Hold your horses buddy, Vietnam was doing fine with it's Communist revolution until we stepped in and fucked everything up. Going back would make everything worse.

That's my point, it's call sarcasm From what I've seen of John McCain, he wants to continue Bush's crusade against the so called Axis of Evil, but he's done more for the warmongering Islamists than any one of them ever could. One extreme hate preacher can turn a small mob against a country. Bush is the flip-side of the coin, effectively turning a whole country against these loosely associated mobs and the countries that harbour them.

I wonder how President Obama will deal with this...

At 11/4/08 11:20 PM, Memorize wrote: I wanted him to win for 1 reason only: So I wouldn't have to deal with excuses for why he lost.

Bush excuse: "He stole Florida"

Obama excuses (in the making): "America's racist"

Yeah, that's original. Most Black people don't believe they can be racist, because of the colour of their skin. Obama is different. I've never seen him play the race card, because he is mixed race, so he's both or neither. As far as I'm concerned, that's both.

At 11/5/08 02:43 AM, n64kid wrote:

At 11/5/08 02:30 AM, Mast3rMind wrote:

America wasn't going to be run any better under McCain's policies. History proves that.

Elaborate.

John McCain = George W. Bush. His policy book is as near as makes no difference to a carbon copy of the garbage that we've seen over the past 8 years.

Republicans today are for globalization and using nuclear power which is the cleanest, safest, most reliable and most efficient source of energy we have.

Really? Look up into the sky. Do you see the sun? That is the most efficient source of power available to man. Sure, it's nuclear, but the way that we harvest the energy from that is much cleaner than Fission could ever be.

Do you want to be like the French? They have over 80% of their power supplied by Nuclear. How about like the Russians? Could you see what would happen if a Chernobyl style accident happened in the USA?

They favor neoconservatism, which has been shown to be our best, but certainly not our most popular, foreign affair policy. They favor neoliberalism, which is easily the best economic policy the world has ever seen (India after 1991?, China?, Clinton/Bush NAFTA?, Reaganomics?)

So you wouldn't rather tax the big, successful conglomerates and inject those tax dollars back into the system to produce a better country, that runs more efficiently and attracts more people to spend their dollars in the system, thus generating more tax to spend ad infinitum? You've got to speculate to accumulate and hopefully President Obama will see that the way out of a recession is to build. It creates jobs, which pay money, so people work, cutting unemployment. When they have money, they spend it, back into the system, thus building consumer confidence. The first step out of recession.

The democrats are against globalization, for increasing tariffs, against neoliberalism/neoconservatism, and you call this progressive? History and economic theory sees you wrong.

Well, we've seen the current system and I for one feel like the grass is greener on the other side.

---

:The democrats are against globalization, for increasing tariffs, against neoliberalism/neoconservatism, and you call this progressive? History and economic theory sees you wrong.

Since when have the democrats been against neoliberalism? NAFTA = Clinton

---

At 11/5/08 08:17 AM, Jezuz wrote:

At 11/5/08 04:39 AM, Coop83 wrote: I don't ever recall Stalin spreading a Soviet Influence over Britain. Besides, you only came to join in because the Japanese were dumb enough to pick a fight with you at Pearl Harbour.

He was talking about Vietnam and Korea, and wasn't even talking about WW2.

I made a mistake with the quoted text - I missed a space between the colon and the text that was quoted. What he said was as follows:

At 11/4/08 06:56 PM, Memorize wrote: Starting with Britain and France taking over that land after WWI and expoiting it for recources before handing it back after WWII, which allowed Stalin to spread a Soviet Influence across several of those areas.

That was what I was questioning. Glad we got this cleared up :)

God, today is a wonderful day, although I'm getting sick of whites talking about whites becoming a minority as just a "funny thing". What the hell, guys? Can't a black guy win the election without everyone declaring the whites extinct?

Well, I certainly haven't declared that. I cheered when Lewis Hamilton won the F1 world title - he's a mixed race guy, just the same as Obama. I cheered when I heard that Obama won the election. Like my Hamilton celebrations, this has nothing to do with the pigmentation of his skin. This has to do with his policies and ideals. I think he is genuinely the best choice for president since Jimmy Carter.

Sure, Clinton was funny

"What I told her was to hold my calls and sack my cook!"

And Bush was a bumbling fool

"They misunderestimated me"

But now we've got to put the past 12 years of presidency (I didn't really pay much attention to politics then, as I was too young), but from what I've been reading up on the thing, what America needs right now is someone like Carter, to drag America back up to standards.

---

At 11/5/08 04:39 AM, Coop83 wrote: Ownage

Thanks for saving me bone marrow. Basically. I don't see anything being resolved within one term. I could see some progress in a second. FDR had 4 Terms to correct mistakes and did good. Although mark my words. Even though I vote Democrat, and always will more than likely. I highly doubt a Democrats will be able to hold the white house more than 8 years at a time. Even when Clinton left, the majority of people were happy, and till this day I am shocked at how Gore could've lost that damn election. But oh well. Let's see how this plays out.

---

At 11/5/08 04:39 AM, Coop83 wrote:

John McCain = George W. Bush. His policy book is as near as makes no difference to a carbon copy of the garbage that we've seen over the past 8 years.

I said elaborate. What policies has Bush passed that made the economy like this? Be specific. Also explain why our economy has not seen a recession due to the financial/housing crisis while Europe with their more socialist views have seen recent retractions. I say George Bush was brilliant in having our economy stay out of recession given Clinton's hand in these bubbles.

Really? Look up into the sky. Do you see the sun? That is the most efficient source of power available to man.

Except it isn't.
http://al6200.newgrounds.com/news/post/6 1846

He sums it up pretty well
-Not reliable, low-yield (8)
-Depends too heavily on weather patterns
-Takes a vast amount of land to produce a small amount of energy
-Solar Power has great opportunity as a supplement, but the amount of land required may confine its practical usage to residential and commercial areas attempting to reduce outside electrical consumption.

He also claims that we have enough Uranium to fuel our needs for 5 billion years. The sun is expected to run out in 4 billion years. This means we can generate nuclear power for a billion years after the sun burns out.

Sure, it's nuclear, but the way that we harvest the energy from that is much cleaner than Fission could ever be.

Yeah, just ignore that pesky toxic residue that builds up in the panels.

Do you want to be like the French? They have over 80% of their power supplied by Nuclear.

So they did something right. Let's follow.

How about like the Russians?Could you see what would happen if a Chernobyl style accident happened in the USA?

Something like that did. No one was injured and no deaths occured.

So you wouldn't rather tax the big, successful conglomerates and inject those tax dollars back into the system to produce a better country,

It's been shown that it doesn't produce a better country. Not even close. So you know little about energy and economics. Why do you bother posting?

But let's walk through your reasoning. We take away money that companies earned, and though they are double taxed with corporate taxes being second highest only to Japan, we tax them further. This is not fair, and seeing how corporations are the backbone of our economy, and the largest producers of JOBS, taking their profits hurts the people they employ, raise the costs of their products, and hurt all American consumers.

that runs more efficiently and attracts more people to spend their dollars in the system, thus generating more tax to spend ad infinitum?

Big government reaping money from the private sector costs money. You claiming the country runs more efficiently when this happens is moronic.

You've got to speculate to accumulate and hopefully President Obama will see that the way out of a recession is to build. It creates jobs, which pay money, so people work, cutting unemployment.

The private sector is the best way to do this, the public sector always fails. History proves this =P

When they have money, they spend it, back into the system, thus building consumer confidence. The first step out of recession.

They distribute wealth, yes. But they do not innovate, they do not create wealth. That's called long-term strategy which democrats lack hxc.

Well, we've seen the current system and I for one feel like the grass is greener on the other side.

We've seen the current system work better than Europe. So is the grass greener in China or India? Also, explain how we've been expanding on neoliberalism under Bush despite all the new regulations and trade barriers that Obama wants to expand upon. We have a mixed economy now, we need to expand the private sector.

---

At 11/5/08 02:33 PM, n64kid wrote: I said elaborate. What policies has Bush passed that made the economy like this?

Deregulation that allowed the Banking industry to get away with shaky loans.

Be specific. Also explain why our economy has not seen a recession due to the financial/housing crisis

Our economy is still not doing good even if its not a technical recession.

while Europe with their more socialist views have seen recent retractions. I say George Bush was brilliant in having our economy stay out of recession given Clinton's hand in these bubbles.

Follow your own advice. Acually give an example of something Clinton did. Also if Clinton was responsible wouldnt bush be at fault for not correcting Clinton's mistakes?

Except it isn't.
http://al6200.newgrounds.com/news/post/6 1846

He sums it up pretty well
-Not reliable, low-yield (8)
-Depends too heavily on weather patterns
-Takes a vast amount of land to produce a small amount of energy
-Solar Power has great opportunity as a supplement, but the amount of land required may confine its practical usage to residential and commercial areas attempting to reduce outside electrical consumption.

Oil is the most efficient way to produce power but we do need to find alternative energy even if its not as efficient.

Yeah, just ignore that pesky toxic residue that builds up in the panels.

And nucleur energy is not known for producing toxic waste?

It's been shown that it doesn't produce a better country. Not even close. So you know little about energy and economics. Why do you bother posting?

Except the European countries that do that are doing better then America.

But let's walk through your reasoning. We take away money that companies earned, and though they are double taxed with corporate taxes being second highest only to Japan, we tax them further. This is not fair, and seeing how corporations are the backbone of our economy, and the largest producers of JOBS, taking their profits hurts the people they employ, raise the costs of their products, and hurt all American consumers.

Well Japan has higher taxes but they are doing better. The corporations make such huge amounts of money that the taxes wont make a difference. If they get taxed more then maybe their CEO wont be able to buy that new yacht.

The private sector is the best way to do this, the public sector always fails. History proves this =P

No it doesnt. An example would be the great depression.

They distribute wealth, yes. But they do not innovate, they do not create wealth. That's called long-term strategy which democrats lack hxc.

Distributing wealth does lead to new businesses and that leads to new money.

We've seen the current system work better than Europe. So is the grass greener in China or India?

The current system is not working.

Also, explain how we've been expanding on neoliberalism under Bush despite all the new regulations and trade barriers that Obama wants to expand upon. We have a mixed economy now, we need to expand the private sector.

The private sector got us to this point.

---

At 11/5/08 04:31 PM, aninjaman wrote:

Deregulation that allowed the Banking industry to get away with shaky loans.

It was really regulation that forced banks to go against their rule of thumb to provide loans. More below.

Our economy is still not doing good even if its not a technical recession.

It's fine, it's this ghost recession feeling when you hear over and over again that the economy sucks that you start to believe it. This gives the "cutting-back" effect when people start producing less and consuming less thinking that it's the slowing economy when it's really behavior and confidence driving it, not the fundamentals of the economy itself.

Follow your own advice. Acually give an example of something Clinton did. Also if Clinton was responsible wouldnt bush be at fault for not correcting Clinton's mistakes?

You've been here long enough to have seen this. It both addresses how Bush tried to fix Clinton's mistake, and that Clinton created the housing and financial bubble. Don't ignore what was already presented.

Oil is the most efficient way to produce power but we do need to find alternative energy even if its not as efficient.

Nuclear is more efficient, both space and cost-wise. Uranium is less scarce than oil when used for energy, and unlike nuclear, gas and oil fuels are subject to large swings in prices.

And nucleur energy is not known for producing toxic waste?

Name one energy source with a more compact size in waste, given energy production.

Except the European countries that do that are doing better then America.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Busines s/Credit-Crunch-Britain-On-Recession-Wat ch-With-Release-Of-Third-Quarter-GDP-Fig ures/Article/200810415127567?f=rss

Britain had .1% contraction in GDP 2nd quarter and a .5% contraction 3rd quarter.
The US had a 3.3%/2.8% growth in GDP 2nd quarter with a preliminary .2% contraction 3rd quarter.
This is similar in most European nations. Look it up yourself.

Well Japan has higher taxes but they are doing better.

http://www.indexmundi.com/japan/gdp_real _growth_rate.html
Doesn't look like it.

The corporations make such huge amounts of money that the taxes wont make a difference.

Taxes obviously make a difference, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue. You complain that we lose jobs overseas, yet high taxes and regulation here are the cause of that.

If they get taxed more then maybe their CEO wont be able to buy that new yacht.

CEO that makes 10 million dollars a year that employs 20000 workers. If they paid everyone a dollar an hour extra, that cost is 40 million. But why shouldn't the second highest position of a major company be able to afford luxury items, especially if the company is headquartered at the central economic power?

No it doesnt. An example would be the great depression.

Uhmm, increased tariffs, regulations, taxes, social programs? It's what Hoover did. Don't try the "He was republican" crap with me as policies are policies no matter what party you belong to.

FDR also is believed to have PROLONGED the depression.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR -s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.as px?RelNum=5409

Distributing wealth does lead to new businesses and that leads to new money.

Money is not wealth. Small businesses do not take wealth from overseas. Economies of scale shows that larger companies must be more efficient than smaller companies, so the larger company would bring far more wealth to the country than a small company. We lose ground when efficient companies are restricted.

The current system is not working.

Yeah, because democrats controled congress before the election, and they have more power over the economy than the president.

The private sector got us to this point.

Clinton got us to the point. But what would you rather have? Steady 1% growth forever or cyclical movements from 5% to -1% growth with a long-term trend that far exceeds the 1% steady growth?

The private sector got us to new highs, Clinton gave us some bubbles.

---

:They distribute wealth, yes. But they do not innovate, they do not create wealth. That's called long-term strategy which democrats lack hxc.

wait wait since when does the public sector not innovate? What do you think all those government research grants are for? Ever heard of computers, the internet? Satellites? Catscans dialysis machines ect the list goes on and on through government grants and projects innumerable innovations have been created, the private sector knows how to innovate sure, but private industry requires efficiency in invention which does not allow for pure science and is usually much more rudementary in it's accomplishments, of course the great invention stories of individuals have been widely popularized, but thats mainly to reinforce the positives of capitalism to little kids. the majority of amazing inventions can be traced back to government programs and research, with private companies being given the new discovery for commercial use usually for free (paid for by taxes earned on by individuals with connections) and then the public gets most of its first exposure to the technology through that private interest and assumes it was invented by that company. Of course there are privite innovations like exotic financial instruments like CDO's and manufacturing techniques that helped increase the addictiveness of cigarettes...