Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Lol this part made me laugh;

"I would be hard pressed to find a big difference between what I've done over the last week and what John McCain has been doing since he won the nomination."
Don't Miss

"Just you got more attention?" Crowley asked.

"I did," Obama replied with a smile.

This article really brought down my opinion of Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/25/o bama.review/

It continues to espouse the idea that anything that is going to be said about Obama makes him look like a great person, but a terrible leader.

But nobody in the German press appears to have been quite as smitten by their visitor as Bild reporter Judith Bonesky, who had the opportunity to work out with Obama in the gym of the Ritz Carlton Hotel earlier in the day.

"Obama (with toned arms and a strong back) puts on his headphones for his iPod to listen to pop music. He hums quietly. Then he jumps on a fitness bike. He pushes three times on the pedals -- but then can't be bothered with it.
advertisement

"He picks up a pair of 16 kilo weights and starts curling them with his left and right arms, 30 repetitions on each side. Then, amazingly, he picks up the 32 kilo weights! Very slowly he lifts them, first 10 curls with his right, then 10 with his left.

Quickly I ask: "Mr. Obama, could I take a photo?". "Of course!" he answers, before asking my name and coming over to stand next to me. "My name's Judith" I reply. "I'm Barack Obama, nice to meet you!" he says, and puts his arm across my shoulder. I put my arm around his hip -- wow, he didn't even sweat! WHAT A MAN!"

Prince Ali Fabulous He Ali Ababwa, Strong as ten regular men definately...

Alot of other stuff, especially mentioning that Obama was rallying Germans with his words yet subtly asking germany for something that it had already refused to George Bush... Troop support in the middle east. He's making the same mistake as John Kerry, the idea that all he has to do is act really nice and he'll be able to get people to fight an unpopular war for him. John kerry did it in france, they turned him down.

I want the next president to be an Ebeneezer Scrooge... Unpleasant, Mean, Strict, and very White [Not as in skin color, but as in demeanour metaphorically speaking, Obama can act White too, i've seen it a few times, just like he can act like a rock star, a boller, a basketball player, and according to this article, a weight lifter, but i'm talking about someone who is a robot] But someone, when it comes to economics, is a genious.

He's calling for support in the middle east? He's also saying we should start to withdraw.

As is bush.

As is mccain.

And you already said Bush asked for support.

That seems like a reasonable thing to ask for, given the state of that area.

What's the matter?

At 7/26/08 02:02 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: He's calling for support in the middle east? He's also saying we should start to withdraw.

As is bush.

As is mccain.

And you already said Bush asked for support.

That seems like a reasonable thing to ask for, given the state of that area.

What's the matter?

Nothing really... i just feel like the article, while having the intention of making Obama look like a great person, makes him out to be a rather hollow leader. One who is merely lucky enough to have his actions [according to you, though i would disagree that they're not as similar as you would say]
Energize a crowd of young berliners; but not really any different in the eyes of German politicians who have no desire nor intention to commit soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan, no matter how good Obama is at pumping iron or playing basketball or being an infallible human being, so to speak.

New update.

Ben Stein believes McCain needs Carl Rove to help win.

McCain's campaign defends their charge of Obama playing the race card.

Meanwhile, both campaigns put up commericals for younger voters on Comedy Central and MTV.

I used to support Mike Huckabee, only because so did Chuck Norris, but since he dropped out, I just don't care about politics anymore. And that's okay because I can't vote yet.

Chucktatorship!

At 8/1/08 05:11 PM, Thomas724 wrote: I used to support Mike Huckabee, only because so did Chuck Norris, but since he dropped out, I just don't care about politics anymore. And that's okay because I can't vote yet.

Chucktatorship!

Take notice, world. People like this who are over 18 years old is the reason why Bush got elected in 2004.

At 8/26/08 11:13 PM, Achilles2 wrote: Take notice, world. People like this who are over 18 years old is the reason why Bush got elected in 2004.

Ive heard that before about Obama but never Bush.

At 8/26/08 11:13 PM, Achilles2 wrote:

At 8/1/08 05:11 PM, Thomas724 wrote: I used to support Mike Huckabee, only because so did Chuck Norris, but since he dropped out, I just don't care about politics anymore. And that's okay because I can't vote yet.

Chucktatorship!

Take notice, world. People like this who are over 18 years old is the reason why Bush got elected in 2004.

Looks like someone is in a cranky and pissed off mood. You need to go outside and get some fresh air, sir.

At 8/26/08 11:59 PM, AbstractPathologist wrote: Looks like someone is in a cranky and pissed off mood. You need to go outside and get some fresh air, sir.

I'm getting pissed off about the turn that the U-turn that the US is making, especially in something as serious as a Presidential election. Yes, I know that he was joking. But I can tell you that people in my school (some of who are allowed to vote) say things like that and aren't joking.

I'm all about Obama...^_^ My XboxLive Gamertag says so, and I trust it's decision

At 6/10/08 11:09 PM, AdamRice wrote: Too make a republican connection, many of Bush's economic policies are similar to Ronald Reagan's.
IE: Cut taxes, deficit spend, large defense budget. I think that these policies are very harmful and have lead to the devaluation of the US dollar and recent economic slowdown. So in the sense that many Reagan conservatives voted for Bush, many Kennedy liberals will likely vote for Obama.

I don't think that GWB's policies are anywhere close to RWR's. First of all, military spending is a red herring. Even with two wars, GWB has not increased military spending by all that much as a percentage of the federal budget. Either social security or medicare are larger than our military spending. Furthermore, GWB has spent money rather liberally that RWR would never do. No Teacher Left Standing...err...I mean No Child Left Behind which received bipartisan support...hell TED KENNEDY even sponsored the Senate bill. GWB's perscription drug benefit amounts to over $1 TRILLION.

Reagan was responsible in how he handled government intervention in the economy. That is why the 1980s saw a complete 180 turn-around of Carter's "misery index".

Personally, I think Obama's ideas have been tried. Government intervention in the economy is bad and causes stagnation. Just think how bad things would be now if GWB was an all-out socialist rather than a tax-cut and spend Republican. Listening to Obama speak about taxes reveals that he either does not have the slightest clue as to the realities of where our tax revenue comes from or he just says what a spin-doctor running a focus group tells him to say. Either way that is not a good thing.

Then there is the issue of Universal Health Care (UHC). Right now we have to sell bonds to China to buy gas (to use a Hillary line)...meaning they effectively own 2/3s of our debt (sorry Cellar). Now is not the time to pursue socialized medicine. UHC will be more expensive than the military.

I think the country is merrily heading towards economic collapse in an orgy of credit-fueled euphoria with the blind belief that someone else will (or can) pay the bill. John McCain will not save us from this and neither will Obama. What it comes down to for me is who will provide the slowest, least painful crash.

That person is McCain...Obama will just put the pedal to metal and run us into the wall at 100mph. Sometimes it pays to have an elderly driver.

At 7/24/08 10:28 PM, aninjaman wrote: Think universal health care is a bad idea? Look at Canada. They are not a rich or as powerful a country as America but they pull it off fine.

ewww... bad example. Even among UHC supporters and policy-makers look at Canada as a way NOT to do UHC.

1) The tax rate in Canada for someone making $50K is 50%. In the US this about 20%.
2) Making it illegal for anyone to practice medicine for profit has produced a system where people who are willing to pay for expensive care out-of-pocket must stand in line with everyone else. While this may sound fair, what it creates is unnecessary waiting where people suffer (and possibly even die) when they do not have to.
3) Allows for government intrusion into your life by making all kinds of laws regarding "safety" because when you do something and get hurt...you're medical bills are paid by public funds.

In reality I do not have to get past point one. Is UHC really a good way of tackling rising healthcare costs? To put the question another way: If a person cannot afford health insurance, can they afford government provided health insurance?

The reality of it is, if I cannot afford to pay the monthly premium as it is...what makes people think that the poor will be able to pay the increased tax rate?

This is where both candidates go wrong. Tax revenue is pegged at 19% of GDP...REGARDLESS OF TAX RATE. So if Obama or McCain wants increased tax revenue to pay for government projects/programs they need to increase GDP.

1) Start drilling. It begins with oil. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) responds to the cost of oil faster than anything else. When the CPI goes up this is called inflation and causes our GDP to go down (along with tax revenue). When the CPI goes down this is called deflation and our GDP goes up (along with tax revenue). Yes we need alternative energies. But the government has rarely provided new technology with the It aslo takes time. Thus we need a bridge to these future energy sources. IN SUM: Drilling along with normalization w/Iran will bring oil back down to $30-50/barrel which will provide a stop-gap while we develop alternative energies AND cause deflation which will be a good thing.

2) Social Security Reform: I'm 33 and I don't believe I'll see a social security payment. Privatize it, do whatever. But get the country's six best economists and financial experts together and just do what they tell you to do.

3) Start cutting wasteful spending: I'd probably begin by scrapping No Child Left Behind and cutting the federal education department by half. They don't contribute anything to education other than leeching off of funds bound for schools.

4) No more entitlements until we get the budget under control.

I can't believe how people act like being similar to Ronald Reagan is a good thing. All Ronald Reagan did is lower taxes while at the same time raising military spending in order to fight the imaginary "evil empire". Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush fucked the economy, and Clinton had to repair it.

Ronald Reagan didn't cause the fall of the Soviet Union, Mikhael Gorbachev did. The fall of the USSR was almost a completely domestic issue, the US had almost nothing to do with. The Soviet Union fell because Gorbachev attempted to reform the system with good intentions, but his lightning-fast reform didn't sit well with a country that had remained unchanged for decades.

All Ronald Reagan did was introduce a shitty world outlook of oversimplified "good vs evil", instead of the reality of Real Politik, and he brought in Christian conservatism that screwed over older values of small government and replaced it with more government regulation on people's lives. Ronald Reagan was a bad president, whenever or not your a conservative or a liberal. The way people view Ronald Reagan as some kind of small government saviour is pure historical revisionism and partisan views on history. There can be bad conservative presidents and bad liberal presidents, just as there can be good conservative presidents and bad liberal presidents. Just because someone is a conservative, it doesn't automatically make them a good president, or vice versa.

At 7/24/08 10:28 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 7/24/08 09:35 PM, yourefat wrote: Think universal healthcare as a good idea? Look at Japan. There economy was better than ours and they can't pull it off.

Think universal health care is a bad idea? Look at Canada. They are not a rich or as powerful a country as America but they pull it off fine.

You will be singing a different tune when you are #205 in line for an X-ray. Inner-city areas in western europe aren't exact utopias.

Also, the less fortunate and lower-income individuals are not there by divine right, and thus we should not calculate health-care policies by the "lowest common demoninator", per se. "Free-Health-Care" sounds like a sweetheart move that may get you alot of chicks when praising it publicly--but it is not free, not easy, has huge waiting longs, funky logistics and is simply another service provided by businesses & government.

The cost will be the same, more or less, with more loopholes for manipulation.

Allright, this isn't a legitimate Pro-O arguement... but I posted it on his FaceBook wall, and it's fun enough repost.

I am behind Barrack Obama. And I will stay behind Barrack Obama, in the beginning, the middle, and to his very climax. I do not support him it spurts, or sputters. But, I take my support, and I nail it hard right to Barrack Obama.

To me, I look at the polls, and I when I see the lead he has over John McCain, I think: "It's not the size of the lead is, it's how he uses it" And Barrack knows how to use it. And that's why I want Barrack Obama to be behind me. Because I know I can help drive Barrack right to the white house. And I know that with my help, Omaba can use the oval office better then Bill Clinton, or any president.

Barrack also knows when to pull out. He will pull us out of Iraq before things really get sticky, and we have a real mess on our hands.

Barrack Obama can fix the economy, and, he doesn't need to erect oil wells. Or to drill in hard places. Barrack Obama can take the inflated dollar that President bush spent so much time inflating, and pop it. So, that the dollar my become bigger, sturdier tool that might be trusted in to any economy. Even China will envious of the power of our bill.

When November comes, in the privacy of the voting booth, I will reach around John McCain, and pull Barrack Obamas lever. And, in the pubic streets, I will scream his name in apparition.

"I AM BEHIND BARRACK OBAMA"

At 8/28/08 09:40 AM, Battl3Mast3r wrote: You will be singing a different tune when you are #205 in line for an X-ray. Inner-city areas in western europe aren't exact utopias.

What about inner-city areas in america when no one has money for an x-ray. Wiating for one is better then not having one.

Also, the less fortunate and lower-income individuals are not there by divine right, and thus we should not calculate health-care policies by the "lowest common demoninator", per se. "Free-Health-Care" sounds like a sweetheart move that may get you alot of chicks when praising it publicly--but it is not free, not easy, has huge waiting longs, funky logistics and is simply another service provided by businesses & government.

The cost will be the same, more or less, with more loopholes for manipulation.

There will always be loopholes and manipulaiton and it will cost alot of money but nothing is perfect. I do think America should get its debt and spending under control before we get free-health care.

Wow just checked fivethirtyeight and it seems Obama is going to win in an absolute landslide (btw only a week ago it was 50/50 with the McCain campaign seeming to really get a boost from the Palin fiasco), but as fads surely die down, and as she was revealed for the intellectually bankrupt person that she truly is it seems the McCain campaign is back to square one. No doubt Obama is aided by the embarrassing performance McCain displayed at the presidential debates and with the Palin - Biden debate soon to come I wouldn't be surprised to see middle-america turn a lot more purple. Perhaps we're on the verge of seeing an entirely new era in America.

At 9/30/08 02:05 PM, tony4moroney wrote: Perhaps we're on the verge of seeing an entirely new era in America.

Nope.

It's all politics as usual.

At 6/10/08 08:50 PM, Tanasinn wrote: I'm a huge McCain supporter :]

Fuck you.

At 9/30/08 03:00 PM, yinyangman wrote:

At 6/10/08 08:50 PM, Tanasinn wrote: I'm a huge McCain supporter :]

Fuck you.

Wow you're cool.

I'm voting Democrat because English has no place being the official language in America.

I'm voting Democrat because I'd rather pay $4 for a gallon of gas than allow drilling for oil off the coasts of America.

I'm voting Democrat because I think the government will do a better job of spending my money than I could.

I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, I know the Islamic terrorists will stop trying to kill us because they'll think we're a good and decent country.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe people who can't tell us if it will rain in two or three days, can now tell us the polar ice caps will disappear in ten years if I don't start riding a bicycle, build a windmill or inflate my tires to proper levels.

I'm voting Democrat because it's alright to kill millions of babies as long as we keep violent, convicted murderers on death row alive.

I'm still a little unsure on who to vote for but I'm leaning a little towards Obama. I think John McCain is great and all but probably not right for a president position as someone said before. I also disagree with some of the things Obama has said when he becomes president but I think it's still better than McCain.

At 10/1/08 12:08 AM, echotstud wrote: I'm voting Democrat because English has no place being the official language in America.

The federal government can't make that kind of choice, it's unconstitutional.

I'm voting Democrat because I'd rather pay $4 for a gallon of gas than allow drilling for oil off the coasts of America.

A number of democrats, Obama included, do support off shore drilling. Also, if you recall Bush SR made that call.

I'm voting Democrat because I think the government will do a better job of spending my money than I could.

Oh, Roads? Health care? Pfft! Humers and guns are a way better way to spend money!
(Notice road/hummer and health/guns)

I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, I know the Islamic terrorists will stop trying to kill us because they'll think we're a good and decent country.

Obama supports staying in Afghanistan. As with alot of democrates.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe people who can't tell us if it will rain in two or three days, can now tell us the polar ice caps will disappear in ten years if I don't start riding a bicycle, build a windmill or inflate my tires to proper levels.

Yeah, Your local news meteorologist invented goal warming. It's a grand plan to make people stop complaining about cold winters.

I'm voting Democrat because it's alright to kill millions of babies as long as we keep violent, convicted murderers on death row alive.

So, wait, you're implying that's it's both bad to give a woman right over a choice that effects all her life is bad. AND that making sure a deathrow mate is guilty.

Have your own opinion, and get your facts right.
Don't just copy paste off the internet, and if you do, use something that a bit more fair and balanced then fox news.

Glowstick-warrior: Way to go with that really cheap shot at Fox News. It was so necessary.

They're the same....

At 10/2/08 12:31 AM, JonH2O wrote: They're the same....

Acually Obama supports those policies so don't get on a moral high horse crusading for Nader.

At 10/2/08 12:31 AM, JonH2O wrote: They're the same....

Protip: Being opposed to nuclear power is hurting the move towards green energy.

At 10/3/08 09:21 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 10/2/08 12:31 AM, JonH2O wrote: They're the same....

Protip: Being opposed to nuclear power is hurting the move towards green energy.

Acually nucleur energy has many problems like health risks and where to store the waste. Also nucluer plants need government subsidies to run and that alot of tax dollars being spent there.

At 10/4/08 07:54 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 10/3/08 09:21 PM, dySWN wrote:

At 10/2/08 12:31 AM, JonH2O wrote: They're the same....

Protip: Being opposed to nuclear power is hurting the move towards green energy.

Acually nucleur energy has many problems like health risks and where to store the waste. Also nucluer plants need government subsidies to run and that alot of tax dollars being spent there.

We can find places to store the waste - although if we install breeder reactors it wouldn't even be that much of a problem. Plus, wastes aside, nuclear is one of the greenest and most cost-effective options out there; according to some research I did back in high school, a nuclear power plant produces something like 1/1000th the waste in one year by weight as coal power plant produces in one day.

At 10/4/08 07:54 PM, aninjaman wrote: Acually nucleur energy has many problems like health risks

Like what?

Nuclear power plants are INFINETELY safer now than they were in the times of chernobyl and three mile island.
It's so heavily regulated thatit would be stunning if there was an incident.

and where to store the waste.

Well they could build special facilities or whatnot.

And also breeder reactors are becoming more and miroe efficient, that it may not even be an iissue in the future.

Also nucluer plants need government subsidies to run and that alot of tax dollars being spent there.

Nuclear power is extremely effiecient compared to all other energy sources, which means in the end it's far cheaper.

And besides, the US government spends so much money on other pointless shit. This should be considered a priority.