StupidNation

Define a right, tell me where it comes from, and how rights can be legitimately protected. When you are finished you can continue with your pillow-munching defence. Homosexuality isn't just immoral, it's disgusting, and anyone who defends it would have been imprisoned such non-sense 200 years ago. Now the pendulum has swung, anyone who promotes liberty and morality is seen as an enemy. You are tools to your own distinction where rights will be eradicated because you don't think hard enough, or deeply enough to think where they come from and the only means to defend your rights. Rights are not license, and license is not liberty. Rights come from morality, and all rights are predicated from morals. Here's an example... Someone dies from someone else actions. The question is no longer a question of death, but what was the intent of the person who committed the act. Intention, and the moral knowledge of what they did determines all law and the punishment attributed to that breaking of law. You cannot separate morality from a right anymore than you can separate light from the sun. Most of the feeble-minded responses have never come up with anything insightful. Why not point out what a right is and show me the historical understanding of their view. You don't have to understand homosexuality, but ask yourself is it intrinsically order to it's act like a man and a woman? Because it is intrinsically disordered it lacks the fundamental understanding of whether or not it can be a right.

Which is exactly what I'm thinking as well. I saw Edwards standing talking to Hamdam as pissed off as can be. If you have a groin injury and just hurt it you would be in the locker room with ice compresses and then heat therapy on and off for the next couple hours. Yet... maybe it's true and his angry face was disappointment. Some of his passes went into the ground with no drive from his legs. Maybe the med staff is inept. Let's see who starts...

I guess you should have read what I wrote more carefully. I said, "I wasn't in favor of pulling Losman (although those 2 games with under 80 yards was hard to watch), and I'm certainly not willing to pull the plug on a guy..." By my logic I'm consistent, although you never read, or didn't understand what I wrote. I'm not done with Edwards, he's shown too much with too little at TE and WR.

Unless Trent is really injured I'll give a mulligan. You can't pull a guy who had over 270 yards and was part of 4 TDs last week, to a QB who has shown nothing for his career and is leaving at the end of the year. You gain nothing by that decision, and you lose precious time developing your QB to see if he's worth his weight. Instead they do what I'm sick of seeing, which is pulling the QB. I wasn't in favor of pulling Losman (although those 2 games with under 80 yards was hard to watch), and I'm certainly not willing to pull the plug on a guy who has shown more than JP ever has and ever will in his 2nd season. I don't know if he's the guy, but he's helped us with 2nd half comebacks 3 times this year when our running game sucked. I can't watch the Bills destroy another QB in the hopes that a leaving QB can change their future, which is the most ridiculous thing possible unless JP showed Superbowl level pedigree. They know full well that JP wasn't going to turn it around, and even if he did what's the hopes he turns around the season and we make the playoffs and get killed by stronger teams. Edwards, except for the Cards game where he got hurt and last game where they pulled him, would have averaged 224 yards, has averaged more yards per game than 68% of all starting QBs. That's brings him in the top 10 QBs if he throws for 1.6 yards more a game. He's #11 YPG in games he played through. I don't know, but having a QB that is near top 10 in yards a game, tied for 11th with QB rating, and is a hard worker is not a great guy to throw under the bus for a 2nd year starter. Sorry, I can't watch the Bills anymore this year. They lost me, I didn't lose them. I watched every game in the past 9 years and I can't do it anymore this year (couldn't watch games for 2 years overseas, but watched the Bills for over 17 years). This game, more than any other, pissed me off. The 3-13 years we fought and scrapped. The D played intense upfront last game, but there was no fire with this coach, Schonert forgot what he did last week with his play-calling, and Jauron seals it for me with his pussified coaching. The only redemption I have is if Losman starts next game and Edwards is really hurt. You don't get over groin injuries in a week. If not I'm done until Jauron is out of town. I'm not saying Edwards is the man, but this is not how you run a team at all, and I'd rather suffer with Edwards in his 2nd year, than watch the coaches destroy the team for cheap wins with a guy who will not be back next year and had no chance of us winning the SB. With the economy the way it is I'd rather be working.

That belies the question though... since human nature is ordered to the opposite sex for reproduction, how can an intrinsically disordered action be the product of human nature without some degree of choice? I'll make a prediction, which is already beginning to emerge, but hasn't hit a crisis yet, namely that the Chinese will have an explosion in homosexual activity in the next 20 years as less women will be available through forced sterilizations and abortions. It's already happening to a small degree, but when it expands I'd love to see all the apologists. By the way, the person who cited the American Psychiatric Association as a legitimate source of normalized conditions of the mind failed to leave out the APA always considered homosexuality a mental disorder until 1973. The same APA that reversed their decision on homosexuality based on no scientific evidence, also said that men and boys who have sexual relations, including sodomy and oral sex, can be permitted as long as the child does not disagree with being sexually assaulted. The APA has lost credibility. I'm willing to say that a genetic disposition may lead people to be tempted to homosexuality, but in it's core it's a choice as many former homosexuals are happily married, and many heterosexuals are now homosexuals. How anyone could ignore that fact, that people who were heterosexual become homosexual, is enough evidence that homosexual activity is not strictly genetic in all cases and to assume that it does denies the evidence. As far as the argument of labels and "homophobia" race and gender are genetic and define the person, homosexuality is an action and does not define anyone. Many of the idiot debates miss this distinction as actions cannot be put at the level of substance. One's sexuality is not indicative of one's person. Debating an action is not the same as playing race or gender cards. Any attempt to do so shows how shallow the argument runs. Conner's link on the debate of homosexuality is a perfect distinction of understanding the argument.

He's already said it frequently when called out on his position of banning all guns and other positions which he knew would alienate people. Frankly, the media did so little to call him out on his radical position that I don't expect 4 years to be that much different. We will not get change, we will get a difference of degrees. Change is what Ron Paul wanted with no administrations in many departments, non-interventionist policies, and changing the economic scene entirely to sound money. No one who ran for office really was going to change anything as a matter of policy and principle, but only the degree, except for Paul. Love him or hate him he was the only one who legitimately could have used the change mantra. Change is used to stoke up the emotion of enthusiasm, but it has little to do with reality unless someone planned on truly changing the direction of the country economically, socially, or militarily. All I see is an increase in gov't while blaming others just like the last 20 years.

Although we disagree quite often, this has to be one of the funniest lines I've ever read here and extremely clever. Love the analogy.

I'd trade the Falcons WRs for the Bills WRs all day, including their RB for ours. Trent has looked just fine for a 2nd year pro and his progression from last year is going good. I can't understand what Trent did yesterday that was that awful in consideration to the year he's built up. If what we need is a vet QB who can back him up and play "not to lose" then we already have that. Trent did nothing to lose that game with no sacks and no picks although he threw poorly. If you think a QB is going to fix this team without a real #1 WR then keep dreaming.

Uh, he dances for no gains all the time. He only averaged over 3 ypc 2 or 3 times a seasons before halftime. If teams had a choice and said Marshawn for a 1st rounder and his salary I can only find 2 teams that might be interested at this point of his career, and that's stretching it. He does nothing that a lot of fill-in-the-blanks can't do themselves. Let me re-phrase the situation... if Marshawn was a free-agent how many teams would he play as starter without splitting carries? Name them...

That's not true either. Several teams wanted him and the Saints were the only team to offer him a fat contract. I was on record for wanting Warner after the Rams on another message board. Oh well...

I don't remember any part of the office of presidency to make an economy work. As a matter of fact the president, no matter what his name is or party affiliation, will do more harm to an economy than help it unless his role is to protect against corporatism (soft-fascism) where laws are made in favors of corporations against the freedoms of other Americans, or socialism where freedom is simply restricted, and finally to protect the dollar against inflation and back it with real value. The more meddling they do, the worse it gets. Other than that the economy should be state issue decisions. Economies can be shattered with central planning as history shows, and as long as the gov't gets out of the way and does not give special laws to help corporations that is the best solution to reward creativeness and hard-work. If any president's plan is to stimulate the economy through inflation and phoney job creation he misses the point where he does more harm, not only to liberty, but also to the economy spending fake money and keeping a bubble inflated. Why should corporations that have become inefficient be rewarded for being fat and inefficient against wage earners who produce and expand an economy? I thought this president was going after the "fat-cats" so he rewards them by feeding them?

I never said a flop, but a development in 2010. The Bills are not 3 deep at WR, and Reed is not a #2, but a #3 playing there because he has to out of necessity. We don't even have a real #1. Royal would start for us too and Reed would go back to where he's best suited at #3. A guy his size needs to play tough and not soft. There is no one to teach him that who plays for the team. He also needs to learn body placement for those balls that he needs to get in front of the CB and just shield the ball. The big physical guys do that and it's unstoppable. So far he's playing soft. If he can learn and actually do it on the field he's fast enough to be a great possession receiver and red-zone terror.

Actually I do. The only big hits are in the secondary only during downs and on kick-offs. To think otherwise is just plain fallacious. Show me the big QB hits that used to exist? I'll wait for some proof. Sage, I agree it's the guys in the offices not on the field.

It's funny, I thought he was going to be phenomenal in the NFL, and I thought Orton for the Bears would be solid but not great.

I watched the reply and he wasn't advancing once he thought the ball was gone and just pushed him and stopped moving his feet. He had to be careful of hurting little Thigpen with the ball because the league has gone insane. As a matter of fact you can see a clear delay after he pushes him thinking the play was over for him. Yes, as the other posted said it's a sad day to see the game taken over by flag-happy zebras.

At this point I agree that we have to see more of Johnson over Parrish. Parrish is not a good NFL WR. He is a good #5 and nothing more. He doesn't find seams and gaps, doesn't adjust well in his routes, and he would make a good back-up #3 maybe. Johnson has better potential in the slot to find seams and out-muscle the opposition for some easy yards. Johnson also has the potential to be a true #2 as well and get Reed back to the slot where he is even BETTER. Johnson is also big enough to be physical whereas Evans is not a physical receiver, and I dare say he's extremely soft. It would be nice to see Hardy develop into a decent WR too, but at this point, and I don't like to criticize rookies, he looks really sloppy out there and his development might be in 2 years from now in the 2010 season. I'm not a guy to say he has no shot, but I know he chances look pretty bad considering his routes look so slow and sloppy unless he does some major work in the off-season. Give me Johnson in the slot. I like my chances with him over Parrish at this point. We know what Roscoe brings, and Johnson brings more as a WR as a freaking rook.

There are 2 plays by Mitchell that absolutely tell me the NFL is going to be harder and harder to stomach as time goes on. Last week Mitchell pushed a guy out of bounds and got flagged for roughness even though the guy was in bounds 20 seconds after the play, and this past week he pushed the QB rather than the drill the guy for the safety for fear of another roughing penalty because he though the ball was out of his hands. This is ridiculous. Either the refs have to call the plays dead in advance in order to avoid injury and make it 2 hand touch, or let it be a freaking football game. Seeing Mitchell push Thigpen instead of drop him smacks of this insane double-standard. I think Polomalu's statements about the future of the NFL was certainly hyperbole, but certainly not far off. It's even worse with the "protected" players of the NFL and teams like the Cheatriots who commit murder on both sides of the ball in comparison to the other teams without penalties.

Ad hominem. The question is was he right or wrong, not what he's linked to. If he's linked to an organization which is right and you subjectively disagree isn't that an a priori error of judgment according to logicians? Ad hominem. The question is was he right or wrong. Or to use your retarded logic can a born again Christian be right or do they have be secular homosexuals to take the opposite extreme view? Actually if you read it he proposed that homosexuality can be predisposed in the genome, but not predetermined. But when science is used it's wrong because of the organization and Christianity. When I use my memory I must be wrong because I can't source it. Well where is your proof? It might be part of a cause, but not the sole cause. I can point to other actions that are just as linear such as Erikson's "Search for Identity" in psychology through individualism turning into rebellion from authority, the lack of logic classes being taught leading into dumb-ass statements as you put forth. If you don't think exposure to any ideology can't lead to something else you are an idiot. Care to tell me why children in the Middle East are more disposed to commit violence? Sociological facts cannot be thrown out as nothing, unless you want to believe so because facts are a B word in a debate. Bigotry isn't disliking an action which is intrinsically disordered. Read above on the logic thing. Your mom can be an alcoholic so do you fight against her alcoholism and therefore become a bigot? She might be predisposed to it through heredity. Your entire incoherent rambling that I'm a bigot for standing against something intrinsically disordered, which can be logically understood in the natural order, is not bigotry unless you define bigotry as "anything I disagree with" doesn't hold weight in your puny mind unless you are bigoted against Christians and Narth, and then you find bigotry to be just fine. I mean a scientist that is well-respected must be wrong because he's Christian and it's NARTH. You never once addressed the video by the AP on Yahoo. I'll tell you why, because it's not Narth. Answer this for me... If homosexuality is genetic how can twins who are genetically identical have changes in their sexuality? or If homosexuality is genetic as a non-dominant gene how could it survive if it doesn't reproduce? Let me put it to you in other terms. If blacks have brown eyes 100% of the time, and cross-breaded with a Caucasian/Swedes who have a history of blue eyes the odds of them having brown eyes is over 90%, with the probability of grey eyes taking in the place of the remaining births as evidenced by fact. That child with grey eyes never reproduces and only those with brown eyes continue to reproduce. Eventually the odds of a child with grey eyes becomes a mathematically improbability especially after thousands of years. If you know anything about genetics you would know this. I mean according to your world-view would evolution force homosexuals to die off, survival of the fittest and the best would continue genetically. Why is homosexuality exempt? The ancient Greeks were disposed to practice pedophilia. Does it make me a bigot for pointing out it's culturally wrong and insane or are you just insane hoping I'm a bigot? I already know the answer. Give me some proof or maybe you aren't the scientific one, which I know is the ruse.

Care to point out the science proving homosexuality is genetic? Oh, that's right, it doesn't exist genius. Scientists have been TRYING to rationalize dumb-ass talking points of the liberal anti-intellectuals and expect to have some credence, and continue to talk as if it exists. I'm actually fairly well versed in all the scientific talking points on the issue. Your stupidity is blinding you. Show me how identical twins have anomalies as homosexuals? Homophobia is a label attempting to discredit reasoned arguments. Labels are an effective form of demagoguery. Why not show us this overwhelming evidence, or simply explain why 50% of homosexuals polled admit they were previously not homosexual and how cases like Jarhead can exist if it's just genetic? Didn't think so. Explain how the Orthodox Jews have less than 1% of male homosexuality, or the rate of homosexuality has expanded at the same time it seems to be "ok" with sexual orientation classes and seminars in public schooling and de-neutering masculinity publicly. Explain why the biggest expansion of homosexuals happen to Caucasians in 1st world countries. It's more of a social epidemic than a scientific one. Science has batted a clean .000 explaining this one. Read this and then tell me who the red-neck is: "Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project By A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D, MBA, MPH April 4, 2007 - Dr. Francis S. Collins, one of the world's leading scientists who works at the cutting edge of DNA, concluded that "there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits. For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive."... http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html The AP had a great story on another geneticist recently who explained that homosexuality has no explanation for it's origins at the genetic and hormonal level. Yahoo had a video of it 4 months ago showing twins of different families. Why don't you actually learn before looking like an idiot.

I know it doesn't fit the "I hate Trent" or some other player mode of threads that get a lot of hits, but we should be happy about how affordable our games are.

I would say in football speed it's McKelvin or Greer, with Evans behind them. In a flat out sprint without pads it's Parrish and his amazing 40 times. He's not football fast, but he's quick.

As much as Bellicheat and crew* have succeeded while cheating they still have to know the best scheme to cheat. He's just a better coach in a coach's league. The league is technological up the azz with percentages, guys behind the scene who use algorithms to call plays, video crews who re-role tape to tell the coach when the challenge, and it goes on and on. On this level the Cheatriots are best. It's the system, and it's a system that is exposed when their other WRs leave and look pedestrian.

No one really considers Thigpen that fast. Poz isn't that fast and does play stiff. We might have a problem and maybe, just maybe, we should have re-signed London to the team.

Trent already is better than average in his 2nd season amongst starting QBs. He had a rough patch of 2 games, and 2 ho-hum games, but overall he's played excellent considering our WRs. If you guys can't see that it's impossible. We don't have a physical receiver or an end-zone threat. It's almost amazing he can do as well as he can. Reed is a #3 WR, Evans is a 1b receiver, and we don't even have a true #1. Evans is a great receiver for what he is, but if it was 3rd and 4 would you rather have him or the slew of big 6'2" guys who are good at what they do for a 1st down or a TD? A Boldin, Fitz, soon to be Bowe, Owens, C Johnson, A Johnson, White, Marshall, et al. or a guy like Evans? Evans is a finesse speed WR who isn't as quick as Steve Smith, or as big to physically dominate with space or going over the middle. For all the bashing Trent gets he doesn't have much to work with, and no one really considers Reed a legit #2, but a solid #3.

Running hard and running smart are radically different. Thurman Thomas wasn't nearly as powerful as Lynch, so according to your view that they "break tackles" or as "powerful" Thuman isn't as good. You see Jackson is very similar to Thurman in that he has good vision and runs forward. I admit he doesn't run as powerfully, but he runs better. It's like comparing a lumberjack with an ax or a chainsaw. Sure the guy with an ax is more powerful, but the guy with the chainsaw is just better. At this point Jackson has shown more as a runner and receiver than Marshawn. I honestly believe if Lynch was drafted in the 3rd round all this talk of how good Lynch is to Jackson would go bye-bye. Jackson just goes forward and picks up yards. Lynch runs hard into 3 people and occasionally runs free. Lynch is harder to take down after initiation, Jackson is harder to initiate contact with.