StupidNation

What this guy said... I would also like to add that they help destroy the dollar as well with "free trade" (managed trade) with a country that purposely devalues its currency to increase the trade imbalance. I'm not a big fan of "free trade", but even if I was and I've heard free-traders think Wal-Mart is great, but how is monetary manipulation part of free-trade? Never understood it.

I think the more the Dems push the issue the more stupid they will look. The bigger issue isn't R vs. D but about the problem where partisan politics and bankers run the country and not true politics. Alas, such real reporting would be shunned by 99% except a few.

BTW, I'm not agreeing with the original poster either. The entire idea that Palin and JTP are a litmus test of conservatism is laughable and silly. Owens, you would be wise to study Robert Taft and Davy Crockett's conservatism, not Palin or JTP.

And Christ said to separate the goats and the sheep into Heaven or everlasting fire, that He came to bring the sword not peace, and you pretend to know the will of God? Maybe you forget St. Paul's admonition that those who do not follow Christian ethics we shouldn't have in our company, but to always preach the truth in and out of season. Listen, I'm not a preacher, but your 2 cent theology is laughable and ridiculous. A cursory examination of the gospels and patristic writers are completely against your position. They are essentially birds of the same feather. That's the problem and why you just don't "get it". All of today's problems are reducible at some some level to personal responsibility which is imposed by the natural and objective laws of man. Take away those laws you lose a connection to reality, and eventually personal responsibility. I know you can't see this, but come on now... what do you think is really the cause of these issues? Do you really just think that all of motherment comes from people going to college and being exposed to Marx and it just makes complete sense, and that the myriad of welfare recipients who will never be productive got that way because of grade B milk and bad playgrounds? When people complain about motherment or such and such gov't program they are complaining about personal responsibility. They expect others to agree with them because it "makes sense", but without a principle to stand on how do you expect others to reasonably understand you? The true divide of this country is not spending, but objective truth and laws. Throw that away and minimize it and you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Yet if you made a statement about Jews you would be anti-semitic and all the people who claim that religions be damned would find the importance to defend them. Or, make a statement about race that's taboo and would command attention. Make a statement mocking homosexuals and the phobia monsters will rise up. Why is it that only Christianity gives people the anger that should be appropriated for mass-murderers? No hypocrisy here, move along.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html Hard to argue with this. Inalienable rights should never be taken by a majority.

Yeah, the media is much more against him. I'm glad you figured it out when the media hasn't. Also, when the ambassador of CHANGE comes and makes outlandish claims is it the people's fault when they realize what intelligent people already knew... it's all a lie.

That's laughable. The moment you think Evans is in the same breath as Fitz, Q, Johnson, Moss, and Smith you don't understand football.

And if anyone here cannot understand the above you are retarded. The man voted and pushed liberalized bills through his party the last 2 years. His party wanted the bills passed and they were. The man is a sincere liar.

It's not "might", you are just as bigoted as the people you decry bigots. She said something more "tolerant" than you have, namely she thinks America is a big tent, but not for marriage. You are saying her vision, because she doesn't agree with you, is bigotry. Not only is that hypocritical, it's not thought out at all. Are believing in principles based on religious beliefs that also agree with natural law bigotry? If a mathematician protested 2+2=6 would that be close-minded bigotry? Without realizing it, you would, but would exempt the mathematician. Close mindedness to concepts and objective law is a good thing when you attach to a principle. The problem is you lack a principle and base your vision on emotions because it feels like bigotry. A bigot is essentially someone against a group for lack of cause. Homosexuality is not a person or personage. Homosexuality does not belong to the person as does race, it is an action. If you equate bigotry with intolerance than what the hell do you think you are doing other than giving a lesson in hypocrisy? According to your logic you are saying your bigoted view of her bigotry is what you believe should not represent your nation? Having a principled stance on moral grounds, especially with good reason, is exactly who I would want to represent me (and I would never want Ms. Anyone to represent me anyway). Your views are illogical and hypocrisy. But if it makes you feel better scream some more PC platitudes to the masses while pretending your sanctimonious position is the true position. At least I make no pretensions and would go much further than Ms. California saying it is intrinsically disordered and a scourge on the nation, and those who defend it under the pretext of labels are intellectual cowards and weak of mind for not arguing principles. Fair enough?

What does that have to do with one party or the other?

When Simpson was on the bench and Whitner was at FS what did we see? Better skills at covering TEs and the stopping the run from Scott, and worse pass coverage from Donte who was exposed. Donte was picked on by OCs all year long. Especially for a run of games where they passed right at him. Watch the Raiders, Dolphins, and Cardinals games. He was completely picked on, worse than Simpson.

Scott's better in coverage than Whitner and better at the run. Donte is playing this year because he was drafted #8. I hope the coaches and FO realize he was a blown pick and move on. Donte is good depth and honestly is worth cutting for his salary. Whitner just isn't good. He's good at the run, crappy in coverage.

I wasn't getting into homosexuality as intrinsically disordered as a discussion, just pointing out the hypocrisy of others and the media with an agenda which is a different issue. I said I wasn't going to debate the issue and won't simply because it's like discussing nuclear physics with elementary school children. I'm not saying I'm superior, and you're a caveman, but it would be tantamount to having me teach epistemology and dialectics to people who probably could care less while drinking beer and watching more TV than reading books to edify. Just because you think what you said makes sense doesn't make it true. That's why I said I was done discussing the issue of homosexuality as intrinsically disordered. Now if you want to know why I should care it's readily prevalent in today's world with more younger people wearing feminine make-up, more people choosing to be "different" and "special" by being the uber-queer person. It affects society and infects society. To say that there is no influence is to lack eyes and judgment. Sorry, I was raised in a small town in upstate NY, and I'm in my early 30's. I never saw one kid in my school or schools around me looking like an absolute flamer, now it's becoming fashionable. If you think the favorable "queer eye" shows, and media treatment has no influence that's like saying music and pop-culture has no influence. No father would rationally enjoy their son telling them "Dad, I'm queer" and while it doesn't affect me personally defending culture for principle's sake used to be honorable. You see that's the insanity of it all... I'm defending moral principles and to think our father's father would have found such discussions insane in the 40's and it's now considered vogue to defend public homosexuality as part of the liberty message shows how far these things do affect people. Our culture as a whole is less intelligent but more educated with information that has little value to no value to the intellect as true knowledge. If defending those principles is against liberty, what the hell do you think liberty really means?

Because it doesn't bother you doesn't mean there is not a right or wrong, or that it doesn't harm society. Last time I checked you or me isn't the indicator of what is the best law or the right law, but objective reason outside of one person's feelings. Oh no genius, that Rosa parks analogy is always used by the immoral showing an intrinsic link between "isms" that are wrong. It has little to do with defiance. People have, and do, equate racism with homosexual struggles. If you aren't aware of that don't discuss things... I mean are you honestly that stupid? Type in "rosa parks homosexuality" in Google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cli...amp;btnG=Search What do you see you moron? Did I say that? Of course not jacka*s, but pretend I did. My point was to see the media hiding or refusing to report on stories of homosexual abuse, and when they do it's not the same bloodbath if it's a "hate" crime against homosexuals. The few media outlets that do are small and insignificant. You really live in a fantasy world.

Tolerance is a virtue of the soft-minded and ignorant when it comes to acts. Acts of the will can be judged and should be judged. What cannot be judged is the intention unless it is explicit or implied. We are to tolerate people, but not their actions. That's why the Rosa Parks analogy is illogical and flat-out stupid. Homosexuals are not persons who are intrinsically linked to homosexuality, they are people who do homosexual acts. You cannot equate the person with the act, whereas in race you can. Ergo, the analogy is stupid. The key here is that there is no evidence of homosexuality linked to the person, just circumspect studies typically done with an aim to prove their pre-disposed beliefs. There are no facts. I'm only getting into the act of tolerance and analogy, not the act of homosexuality. I mean it's funny that views against public homosexuality, using natural law as an argument, are excoriated publicly and through the media, whereas those who hold aberrant and evil views are given a free pass and championed through the media. It's not a coincidence. When the movie L.I.E came out movie critics loved it and it got rave reviews. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0242587/ But when people say homosexuality is intrinsically disordered where is our outlet to publicly disseminate our views? No, the intolerant gestapo of the left is far more violent than the claims of intolerance of the right. The use of liguistic gymnastics is now the ploy of the immoral with buzz phrases rather than rational discussion: phobia, hate, tolerance, etc.. Yet strangely when they attack pro-lifers physically, or those speaking out against homosexuality I never see the media brigade. When I see the outcry against L.I.E from the media let me know, until then they will see evil when a teacher or cleric does it, but not when it suits their agenda. If anyone thinks the media is neutral on this issue look up the Jesse Dirkhising. Here is a boy that was raped, beaten, and starved to death by homosexuals. Yet, not a peep out of the media. Reverse the situation and make it a "hate" crime. It would be on newsstands, TV, and everywhere else. This is not a coincidence. Here is a story on the 13 year old: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=29026

When Iran becomes a threat to national security let me know... Sounds like they are doing the bidding of Israel, just like the situation of Iraq.

I would rate it an D-, and that's not the hyperbole "the sky is falling" crap that a lot of people have here 2 1st round over-reaches that are not game changers, and one an absolute bust Lost a pick Simpson sucks Butler was the best pick of the draft, and makes this a passing grade if he goes to tackle and plays well Williams is solid as depth and nothing more You rate your top picks, which is also allocated in money, with the highest scale. I would put it on a sliding scale of how a draft should be graded something like: 40% of the quality rating should be about how the 1st round performs 25% 2nd round performance 15% 3rd round 10% 4th round and so on... and I only thing round 5-7 should count 20% of your draft grade as most never pan out. Using such a scale we allocated 70% of our draft's potential on 2 players which have not performed as game changers. What is Whitner? Anyone know? First we were told he was a strong safety, and then when he couldn't match up with Antonio Gates they put him in the backfield of FS as to stop him from being a liability. Whitner is a D grade to me, solid in the run, not good in coverage, and way too much money allocated to a player who we didn't notice was gone when he was injured. McCargo gets a F. That's an F for 40% of the draft because it's the 2nd and 3rd. Whitner would be an F if you factor in what we lost with Ngata. We just lost so much value. But on his own Whitner is a D player for his value. Simpson is an F, so that's 55% of the draft with an F. The only way we get a passing grade is Williams who is a B- for value, and Butler who gets a B+ for value. Honestly, most drafts ratings are lame with too many Bs and Cs. There should be more Fs and Ds. If your team didn't really change from your draft, and when I mean change I don't mean just starters, but guys who change the game for the better, you can't just use the title "starter" as justification.

If your quotes around grassroots means facetiousness, then you are mistaken. It was a true grassroots movement. Fox jumped on the bandwagon, not vice versa. Did you notice the tea parties were against both major parties? If not, go get your marching orders...

Are you honestly that intellectually inept? I made the statement based on principle, and used stats to give verify a point. The principle never changed, nor did I use stats as the principle. This is why it's my last post, you guys aren't smart enough to understand an argument. Statistics can be used as verification of circumstantial evidence, and it's not a post hoc fallacy as someone else implied. In order for it to be post hoc fallacy it would mean it doesn't necessary have to happen, and I assert that it is. Take for example orthodox Jews who have less than a half a percent homosexuality issue. Sociologists, at least honest ones, will point out to the solid family values and the stability of their marriages. If a stream always flows in the same direction and I drop only one branch to watch the direction of the stream, there would have to be a conflicting argument to show it's a post hoc fallacy (although you did not imply that). The principle is homosexual unions cannot in principle be done for the purpose for which the act of sexuality exists. There is no possibility for that act to be in principle good, moral, or lawful. I never used stats to make that assertion. Should there be marriage for incest, polygamy, 2 men 3 women, and lastly what is age you feel is required before adulthood? If the criteria is simply adults consenting why would any of those questions I posed be objected to? If you agree that all of those scenarios listed above as viable you are consistent, but not correct. Law cannot be separated from morality no more than light can be separated from the sun. Death is judged as natural or unnatural based on facts, and if the death was unnatural we judge the morality of the act: self-defense or unnecessary. Morality is always applied in actions that affect the public and subsequent laws are made to protect the moral and natural law. The death of all society is the acceptance of law without moral compass. No society has lasted without that compass. They used animals, not I. Love is first a choice which resides in the will, and secondary implies feelings and emotions. Love, by definition, is to choose the good. The good is based on objectivity. Something cannot be truly loved it is objectively bad. Goodness, perennially defined, is to do something for which it was made. A clock is good if it keeps time, man is good when he acts by laws which are guided by intellect first and then will. You are making all actions contingent on the will and license. One cannot truly love murder or stealing. Their intellect would be deformed as to what the will chooses, or the can choose their own selfish good over the true good and objective norms of justice are applied. Liberty and freedom are the rights to do the things we ought to do. We have no right to be free to murder, free to scream fire in buildings, and freedom to damage another's name through lies and deception. All life is inherently religious. Aristotle said man is inherently religious because a religion is anything which is the teaching of how things should run in society. I'm not talking about institutional religions, but religion. You care about what I'm saying because essentially you believe I should not speak about these things in public and should be disinterested. Yet, you are very interested in what I'm saying. That's hypocrisy... namely, to assert I shouldn't care about others views in public, but you care enough only rebut me. Well my friend of fantastic mental gymnastics, why should you care about me if society shouldn't care about my beliefs and views if I'm an adult? If you answer you are a hypocrite to your own world-view. Here is a great discussion with a current president, who doesn't use one argument based on principle, with a guy who actually was properly educated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZxiVnuFFoI

He also looks complete roided too from those 2 pics below. You cannot put on 25 lbs of lean body mass in that shape in 2 months. Hell, I've yet to see anyone put that amount of lean body mass in 2 months even out of shape.

When a principle is brought up, most of you geniuses bring up circumstances to undermine the principle. That's because, as a mentioned before, people cannot think logically even if they believe they do so. The principle of natural creation is in principle possible with a man and a woman, and it cannot in principle happen with homosexual unions. That does not mean that the principle is denied when couples are sterile or the like because the principle was never violated, just circumstances. Values are based on principles, not whims. If you think I'm going to argue with a bunch of guys who have never studied minor or major logic, yet claim to be logicians, you wrong, I'm wasting my time. I haven't seen a logical argument. All I see that pass as arguments is that the circumstances to the sacrality of marriage have changed with increases in divorce and abuse. That does not change the argument, but in fact enhances it. With the destruction of the sacrality of marriage and family life comes higher crime rates, higher dependency on others intellectually and economically, and a complete loss of responsibility and moral focus. The stats that verify this are astronomical in all regards. So in essence the stats to show divorces don't devalue the principle of traditional marriage, but enhance it. Why don't you show the increase of incarcerations in single families, suicide rates, depression, and the like. Homosexuality is in fact increasing in societies which proves it's social rather than genetic. There has not been one scientific proof given for homosexuality but the repeated assertion that it is genetic without proof. In answer that some animals are homosexuals, that also implies that is also natural to commit filicide and cannibalism as some animals do those things as well. Applying animal actions to universal ethics is laughable at best. Animals are not a measure of what is truly natural to man. Man has the use of reason. Animals commit acts heinous to rational adults such as infanticide, filicide, and cannibalism.

I don't see any ??s about a guy who works extremely hard, is considered one of the biggest talents of the draft, and has excellent character. I love this guy, although I was dreaming about Crabtree.

I'm just happy we are doing something in the trenches. Hell if we get Barwin or a high rated guard next round all I will say is Alleluia. It's about freaking time. We tried the fancy sexy picks. These are great picks.

I like the pick, I just f**kin wish Crabtree fell one more spot.