StupidNation

"No nation in the world has ever created debt to get of debt and every nation that has was destroyed. Knowing this what makes you think you can beat history?" or "From your conception of how this package was to work you acknowledge you need 2.6% growth for the next 4 years, how can you be certain this is going to risk and aren't you doing what you claim you fought against in your campaign which is increasing the burden for future generations with a plan that has never worked in the history of economic history?" and/or "How can you take from the productive center of the economy and increase the non-productive center in gov't and expect a result other than failure? Why are you penalizing those who produce and creating a system in which those who produce wealth are given to those who do not and how can that stimulate the economy long-term? Do you plan on cutting those jobs after you create your desired effect, if not how can you justify this economic theory?" or "Why should we care about the AIG bonuses when in fact the blame rests on you for the stimulus to begin with. How can anything think we can print our way to prosperity, and if that is so why work at all? If the idea of stimulus is to give money to spend, when consumption is our problem, how do you think this fixes anything when the other stimulus packages never worked..." or "If the economy would have fixed itself by later this year or early next year without your stimulus package, aren't you in essence prolonging this problem with a dollar crisis and world powers collaborating against our dollar because of your policies and those in Congress?

Great story from a classy guy who never reached his potential from injuries.

Watched Williams and Whitner play in the secondary. Williams is an upgrade over Whitner. We don't have a FS. Scott played pretty well actually, if anyone watched the SD game he played very well and it showed he can play the SS role sufficiently. I can't figure out why we are talking about SS as a huge liability when we don't have a FS.

TO>Moss Evans<Welker Reed>Galloway? Hardy/Parrish/Johnson>better than N.E pack Difference will be Moss will get more deep ball chances with better O-line, Welker exploits the middle of the field and Evans is one-dimensional, Reed will do a poor-man's Welker, but the upside of Johnson really intrigues me. Having him as a #4 is scary awesome to have as a problem. Throw in Hardy's development and we dominate their WR corps. Still, our O-line doesn't get their blatant holding call leniency, and our QB looked shaken after the Cards game, with the exception of 2 games after the fact.

Go look at Western NY. Tell me how the unions did for NYers. Moron

Sorry, protectionism works. That's a load of bull. We are exporting our money. The problem is we are not making a product people want at the prices they want, it has nothing to do with tariffs. Our country survived without income taxes through tariffs alone. It's about time. Now we need to break the unions against business and allow businesses to be competitive.

He already have one of those in Whitner. We don't need 2 safeties who cannot cover the ball. Williams, to his defense, can at least play in the box like a LB.

Funny how the arm-chair quarterback of PPP slings sh-- at others while contributing nothing but sh--.

Agree with everything but SS. Scott is a decent SS. We need a FS, not SS. Scott is a good starter, Whitner is a good back-up, but we need a ball-hawk in the backfield.

So big gov't doesn't work and is inefficient... Maybe you should really consider that for a moment and ponder the depths of where it leads.

Wait... this makes no sense... are you guys implying states with large amount of government employees are economically bankrupt and are doing worse? I know the solution!!! Throw more money at it! It's fixed education and now it's stimulated the economy... INTO HELL

Great points. The guy STILL isn't proven, and going by last year he didn't look that great. The guy single-handedly almost had us lose a few games.

How many sacks did Peters give up last year? Over 10 right? Sorry, he's not a solid deal to me, and anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand this. If you want to pay this guy 1/10 of the cap for the entire team with one good year then don't complain about Schobel's deal who has had more than 1 good year. I'm not sold on him as a player, let alone the franchise player.

Actually Long and Peters are just as accomplished: both only have had 1 good season.

I'll take their 2 1st rounders, and their 2nd next year. Done deal.

Evans was single covered both games with the Dolphins, and their CB was on him really tight. Evans is more of a guy who can burst 10-50 yards and get separation more than a guy who just gets separation through route running. He's a 1/3rd of the field type player who doesn't go over the middle. That makes him easy to defend. It's not so much double coverage, Steve Smith gets through it all the time, it's the difference between making the D play you rather than being predictable. Evans is predictable. I don't think Johnson will play much with T.O, but he can be a good #3 in place of Reed if he steps us. If he can get 30 catches or so I consider that a good upgrade and I think he'll do better than that because of Reed's injury history. I think the guy who benefits the most is Reed who is great in soft coverage up the middle. Now if Evans wasn't going to short-arm slants and play physical I would say he might see a huge improvement, but he's not a #1. Go watch Devery Henderson and you'll see Lee Evans, except Lee has much better hands is more reliable.

TO will be our #1 option. He's simply better than Evans in just about every category as a WR, with the exception of drops. He runs over the middle, beats single and double teams consistently, and has break-away speed for TDs. I still think he's awesome for 1 year. I want to see Steve Johnson step up, and honestly we needed a #1 receiver. Lee is not a #1, he's a better version of Devery Henderson.

I would go for it in a second. Peters wants 1/10th the cap space and we can be offered 2 1st rounders that cure TE and Center and for our 11th pick we get a stout defender I say we go for it. Walker did fine at LT, actually better than Peters this year. I'd upgrade at 2 more positions for a fraction of the cost. Peters isn't playing for us anyway without 8 figure salary. He really hurt the O-line chemistry last year and he should just go. Take their 1st rounders and next years 2nd. Done, take it. Last time I checked Gandy was sufficient for the Cards (although looked horrible in the SB), but I watched a lot of Cards games and he was fine.

You have to be more of a ballhawk at FS. Can someone who has said this verify how they think this is going to work? He doesn't break up passes, he doesn't get INTs, and he's not good in coverage or tackling in space. He's the ultimate "he would suck at FS" but his draft spot gives people hope.

Awesome story, thanks Jim!

You are using 100% as a litmus test, but I can point to many organizations which are mostly private which accept gov't money. Are all Catholic hospitals private, not all, but the majority are. Still, the open-minded argument which liberals used is violated for their purposes. Can there be a debate and open teaching on intelligent design in public schools? Of course not because it doesn't fit ideology, and they are 100% non-private and yet they restrict schools through the ACLU. Can I keep making examples for you? Bottom line is this is far more damaging than you realize, and I hope Catholic hospitals close if this is true. I hope good doctors go to other countries, which will be the inevitable, and the OB-GYNs continue to leave the field. Maybe they can be replaced by lawyers.

Can you please explain how my post had anything to do with the military, and when you are done reviewing the context of what I wrote and what you said please refer to yourself as the idiot.

Catholic hospitals are opposed to killing, and abortion is killing. Part of a Marines duties are to kill if necessary. The Marine analogy fits, but in the opposite way. You are telling a Marine he cannot kill in combat, in the same way you are telling an institution that is supposed to save life to kill life. Your analogy fits, but much different than you think. Ask why they do something and look for the cause. It's really that simple. If that institution is supposed to allow, actively or passively, the taking of innocent life then it's existence would be a contradiction to the mission it was instituted on and cannot function without being in principle compromised on a core belief. To make the analogy easier, it would be the same as telling a PETA member to eat a roast beef sandwich, or force PETA to sell roast beef from their locations to any member as to allow freedom to choose.

Your Catholic in name only, and I don't recognize anyone as a Catholic who doesn't see the seriousness of abortion and ridicules others who stick to principle and not toleration as it applies to doctrine. Toleration is not a virtue, and toleration of evil is not tolerance but tacit acceptance. Then your defense of this stupidity with eliminated pedophiles, who aren't pedophiles, but homosexuals (look up what a pedophile is) who abuse young men. Yes, I agree that active homosexuals should be thrown out of the priesthood, as any seminarian who even has proclivities should be thrown out. That's Catholic teaching. Yes, I'm a Catholic and believe the Catholic Church and have actively fought against homosexuality which is a scourge of not only the nation but the world.

What Darin said.