StupidNation

Only when the other side does it right?

So you won't address the substance of the argument and play the time? Well you tell me if counting welfare checks as income on a 1003 is a good idea and get back to me.

How anyone could equate Peters performances with just a few blown plays is an imbecile. Peters was getting torched for an entire first half. I watched him over and over again on the right side of my screen getting man-handled. Point is Chambers played better, and Peters lovers can't get over their man-crush. If anyone uses Jauron's statements as indicative of anything need I remind you 3 years ago he said the same things about everyone who under-performs. That's his style. My eyes and Peters getting pushed like a rag doll don't lie.

Disagree entirely based on facts. The Pitt game in pre-season and our 1st game is evident that a rusty Peters is worse. Chambers did better in the Raiders game.

Another reason why we were screwed: You may not like the source, but this article is dead on, although her antics are not needed... http://www.anncoulter.com/ And here is another article on why Clinton's policies helped ruin the banking system with threats of civil class actions: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424945,00.html

They aren't conservatives, they are Republicans. Conservatives don't increase the size and scope of government. Also, if the Republicans didn't guard the henhouse where were the Dems pointing out the wolves? Oh that's right, they were given money by the wolves at a much higher rate than Repubs. You are also missing the point, the financial henhouse was trashed the moment they allowed people to regulate the market with bad loans to people who weren't qualified and price-fixing the interest rates artificially low. Those are the real reasons for this mess, and it's not a partisan question, except insofar as neither party has held the Fed Reserve liable for regulation. Show me one movement by either party to regulate the Fed? The only bill out there is by Ron Paul to abolish the Fed in a years time. If you don't believe in abolishing it, show me one bill by Dems to regulate the Fed, the creator of this mess. You are missing the point.

It's very simple: you can't trust either party. Bush is not to be trusted either economically or in matters of safety, neither is McInsane. Obama and the "Friends of Fannie" aren't to be trusted either. They are all in bed together.

Making loans available to the poor (regulation), price-fixing the interest rates lower than the market would bear (regulation), and now we have video of Fannie's own claiming Obama and the Dems as their own: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0&feature=bz303 Oh yeah, here is Obama admitting he knows nothing about Wall St.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjaoJuAYnaI Pretty funny if you ask me and this absolutely certifies that the Dems were a big part of this, and the next time I hear a Dem blame deregulation when they forced bad loans on Wall St for their constituency they should think twice.

Don't write in Ron Paul, your vote won't be counted unless the state is too close to call. You are better off writing in his pick of Chuck Baldwin at this point if he is on the ballot. If he's not I'm writing in Paul too.

I only care about power rankings when we had off-years. It was to see if there was hope behind our record that I was seeing. Now that we are winning I really don't care whatsoever. But when we are losing I always wanted to see what the "experts" thought so I had hope we could turn it around.

Trust me, if this was Palin it would be on every cover of every paper, as well as the blunder when Biden contradicted Obama on the bail-out.

Yes, he played terrible. Professional sports is about playing at or near perfect for your craft. When you have 2 or 3 major blunders in a game you sucked. Peters had about 6 plays that he was horrible and caused a sack or pressure. That's horrible.

There is one fiscal conservative: Ron Paul other than that they are just CINOs who think smaller gov't means slowing down the size of gov't, but from 2000-2006 they have no excuses. China asked for a one-world gov't on Monday, or a one-world financial system with new currency to control the world instead of having the US drag the world down. They may get their wish faster than you realize since we owe them big money and in order to get the masses happy they will placate to them like they did with Clinton's plutonium generator he gave them, or the favored nation status we give them with trade with no reciprocity on tariffs thereby increasing our imbalances world-wide. He who controls the money controls the gov't so it's essentially the same thing with a nicer name than One World Gov't. Our version of democracy as a whole is poor form of gov't as people only vote for their wallets and politicians only vote for their wallets in 4 year chunks and don't give a damn about 10, 20, or 30 years down the road. Look at how many "conservatives" vote Republican incumbents in year after year while doing jack for their constituency. Sure they want to lower taxes, but God forbid they lower spending and force true transparency in gov't.

Yes they do. The reality is dropping spending considerably is the only way to change things, as well as telling those who did pay in to SS that they will have to wait longer before they can get benefits because the lazy azzes in the ghettos determined it's much better to get free candy than to work for hamburgers. Really this county has no future. The baby-boomers were the last generation who tried to save consistently as a generation and most of them were fiscal conservatives. The younger generations who are generally more irresponsible have no shot at turning this around. 1989 doesn't seem that far away does it? Wait until China gets their wish they asked for on Monday. The masses will scream "yes" when the time comes just because they were too damn lazy to fix their own laziness to begin with.

All excellent points. The lending of the banking standards to increase homeownership is regulation to increase bad loans. What was needed in such a case was less regulation and let the banks fall on their faces if that happens. When you subsidize bad decisions and regulate bad decisions and then blame deregulation it shows how clueless the ordinary public is.

I don't find it amusing they can't see the difference, I see it as pathetic and it shows the one-sidedness of the media.

Ummm... it wasn't deregulation, but regulation which hurt the market. I know that might seem hard for you to comprehend in Liberalville. There was artificial price fixing at absurdly low rates by the Fed. They backed Fannie and Freddie to help catapult the issue. If this was a political issue you might be right, but it's not. Can you show me where any demoncrat was bashing the absurd rates of the Fed? Show me one and you've made a point (except Kucinich).

I'm not a Demoncrat, but I can say I just read the article and it's clear that the author is very biased and short-sighted. Sure it would have helped, but most of the bad debt was from 2003-2005. By 2005 the damage was done and it was like sticking a band-aid over a broken dam. Still the real issue is being avoided and politicized, which is that the Fed artificially dropped the rates to avert a recession in 2001 to 2002. They started the fire and now it's political. Who votes on the rate drops or increases? No one of course. If they really wanted regulation they should regulate the Fed and see who their board of directors are, their minutes and resolutions, and propose to regulate them.

So reminding people he's a community organizer is a racist connotation? That's rich, what's your follow up act to say that being governor is like being Pontius Pilate? You can turn anything you want into a racist statement. If you say, "I like ice cream" and I respond, "Well if you say vanilla in public it means you love whitey and if you say chocolate I appreciate you over-looking race." Get off it man.

Because he threw his team and the fans under the bus for his ambitions with a contract paying him $4 million a year. Why can't you learn that selfishness gets no one anywhere. I would feel bad for him at $1 million a year and vastly underpaid, but he's an idiot, and one that almost cost us 2 games with turnovers, and constant pressure from his side.

He's getting older. He's past his prime and we can only hope that he does ok. 30 in football is over the hill for the majority of DEs. There are exceptions, but I've never seen a high motor DE be any good after 30.

I would say Whitner is above average against the run. He's a good tackler and very sound. My point is that he is not great in pass coverage and lacks top speed to do so. If you watch him play he plays off a cushion and then drills his receiver. That's not a troll, that's reality, and reality is what it is.

I mean it's absolutely retarded to quote the founding fathers who knew what would happen if we used fiat currency and the destruction of the dollar would eventually destroy the nation. If you constricted the money supply to an elite few who are non-electable they would have more power than elected official and could effectively control an entire nation. Because the founders are idiots and you guys are savants. Ok, I get it, you believe you know better than the founders on what awaited the country. You guys are useful idiots if you know where the quote comes from. Frankly, anyone who promotes liberty is not the person who should be scrutinized, but the person who promotes enslavement to the system. I find it funny that the founders risked their financial well-being and stability so that 200 years later they are found committing the sin of treason for not approving of socialism by elitist jack*asses. Fixed.

Your right because we tried running the ball to mix it up with marginal success. When we let Trent pass to set up the run we score. Those are facts.

Why can't we talk playoffs? I can't see how that's off limits but calling people future HOFers is ok?