StupidNation

I'm not happy about this. It actually makes the statement that the more talented, but lazy, McCargo is going the wrong way after some great plays last year. I don't consider Williams talented enough to be a difference maker on an NFL team. I like the fact he is consistent, but I wish he was more than that, actually was a difference maker occasionally and did more to help stop the run.

Can it be good to raise tariffs, drop all managed trade that we call "free-trade", and almost go into isolationism without totally blocking off all trade, but limiting it without high tariffs to protect American jobs and factories? Seriously, I would like an answer on this because I really don't see the down-side to this except... The economy is becoming global, like it or not it's coming. People can outsource all office work from phone calls to bookkeeping, and even paralegal work. How do you really police that except by way of threat and fines? I don't know. I also could see the big backlash in quality of manufacturing, although it didn't bother us before when that was the policy that kept us wealthy as a nation until recently and the quality of US made goods were above world average on most items. Well, what say you? Bring back strong manufacturing and strong jobs again? Is it possible philosophically with our role of the economy changing with technology, and secondly what is the best implementation? I just see the death of the middle-class and it's horrible. Just looking for answers. Disclaimer: I didn't start this to begin partisan hijacking of individuals politicians, but ideologically. With that said let the hijacking begin!!!

If McCain or Palin said "ordinary white woman" or was involved with his church they would de facto be anathema to the media. Obama is really getting a pass on issues he was much worse in comparison and he's the one running for office, not Palin. Now with the talk that Palin has no experience it is funny considering the Presidency is an executive office and has more office as an executor than McCain, Biden, and Obama combined (unless you think uniting food stamps in Chicago is an executive move). Still, if Palin went to a church where her pastor said that white people are trampled on by blacks who spread AIDS to white women does anyone really think that Palin could just say "religion is a private matter" and 98% of the media would just lay back and say "Yeah, it is... (how dreamy...)" Facts are Repubs are held to a much higher standard than Dems by the media. The media does shape most people's opinions sadly. The reality is Palin and Obama are both woefully inexperienced for their positions, with the difference is one will be a decision maker, the other will just be watching and learning. Neither of the major candidates have shown they are truly electable. Hey, I like Jesse Ventura's idea of "none of the above".

Wait, what if he has a child who is lost their virginity? Does that make him doubly unfit? What if Biden died, would he have the experience necessary to be the president of the the Unit... wait, that line of questioning is only good for one party with really twisted logic. Vote libertarian or Constitutional Party. You'll feel better knowing you didn't sell out and act like a partisan hack.

If Palin's experience is a question than it throws into Obama all the more. How the libtards can miss this makes it all the more partisan and stupid. Obama has never once commanded any department in any meaningful way. Palin has and that in itself makes her more experience. Being part of any senate seat, whether state or federal, is not even close to the experience of a governor. Secondly, she's not running for president. She makes no decisions whatsoever, Obama does. I don't like McCain and would never vote for the man, but to compare someone who wants to be president with an office that has no authority or ability to control any function of executing the country her experience question is moot next to someone with no executive experience and really no senatorial experience as he was preparing to campaign the moment he was elected senator by his own admission. The man has no experience being a U.S senator. Do you really believe the last year he was getting experience working in the senate? You don't think he was planning his run for the a year before that? The man has ZERO experience, while Palin actively makes decisions day in and out for her state and hasn't been plotting to run for president making his statement in 2006 show the man is a liar. Obama the Liar said that in order for him to run he would need experience for the job he would be applying for. No one is forced to vote for either of those 2. Every libtard trying to defend Obama is worse than any R trying to defend McCain because the man has NO federal experience. If he has show me one piece of meaning legislature he authored and benefited the country, not merely sponsored. At least McCain authored bills (that I highly disagree with).

I discovered Obama's campaign has even admitted he lied about it, and Obama went to far as to call those who said he did a liar, but now with the evidence that he did vote for it his campaign is trying to cover it over: "His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law." http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing...abortion/84059/ Here are some Youtube clips: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9wtW3rMcks Now watch Obama lie and call others liars, and during this he contradicts your version that it was a law on the books already: The man is insane and a liar. He voted for the bill. He voted "present" on the first vote, and "no" on the 2nd vote. Learn the truth, the man voted for killing born babies.

For the record you are wrong. Obama voted against the Born Alive law. Here is the chronology of Obama's lies: "The shocking extremism of that position — giving infanticide the nod over compassion and life — is profoundly embarrassing to him now. So he has lied about what he did. He has offered various conflicting explanations, ranging from the assertion that he didn’t oppose the anti-infanticide legislation (he did), to the assertion that he opposed it because it didn’t contain a superfluous clause reaffirming abortion rights (it did), to the assertion that it was unnecessary because Illinois law already protected the children of botched abortions (it didn’t — and even if it arguably did, why oppose a clarification?)." http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzRhZ...2UxMjA5YjBkZTE= Don't kill the messanger, I've seen his debate with Alan Keyes on the subject and never once he denies it. He has varying reasons, but he did vote against killing babies alive. The law WAS NOT on the books. That's absolutely not true.

Typical partisan bullsh*t. Obama VP said he isn't ready to be president just a few months ago. Neither of them should be president. Secondly, every state has the right of succession and sovereignty. I know the 10th Amendment might come as a shock to some people, but this country was not founded on Federalist overlords. Really, your argument is with Republican Party of Lincoln who pushed the Federalist position over state's rights. Who here realizes each state is supposed to be it's own sovereignty and has right to succeed if it deems best by the citizens of that state by the 10th Amendment? Raise your hand

There was a great video a few years ago of a woman in a canoe during a hurrican paddling when 2 people walked right by her and she was in the canoe in 4 inch water. News stations just find fake coverage.

So are Michelle Obama's probable abortions on the table too? I mean Obama believes the doctor can officially murder a child if the abortion fails. At least she's not murdering the child. Oh, and every child has to act like their parents, it's not like free-will is involved. I mean if you want to bring up hypocrisy might as well go the whole way. Palin's Christian values isn't an hypocrisy as she would believe we are all sinners, but hate the sin. It would be hypocrisy if Palin herself had an affair and an abortion. Considering the young lady is not having an abortion it shows moral courage to her mother's values. If she had an abortion it would be hypocrisy. But let me guess, you were a virgin before marriage so cast your stones of hypocrisy without looking at yourself.

Wait are you telling me the dumbocrats do the same thing like fear that old women will be eating dogfood, or that they will force people to work and be a contribution to society? Well gosh, I've never seen the dumbocrats do that or campaign in the ghetto and shuttle people to vote under the threat of losing welfare. No, that never happens, it's only the repigs who use fear.

Actually, my grandfather and grandmother are both still alive and I actually spend time talking to the elderly. I'm actually leaving in 30 minutes to talk to about 40 of them on a Labor Day dinner they have in my townhouse complex which is mostly elderly. Every single one of them will tell you that we have less freedoms than back then. They were complaining about lack of freedoms in the 50's, and now it's 10X worse. My grandfather boxed for a living until WWII and then joined the war from 41-45 and stayed in Germany after until 47. The one thing that always impresses me is how he could do business like he did back then until now. I know all his friends at the VFW who I talk to and all say how tough things are in comparison to when they were young. Having a bunch of old guys who are/were in business is a great reference. Have you ever tried and what have they told you? Every single one of those guys will tell you how they used to do things and usually reference "you can't do that today". I'm only in my 30's, but being self-employed has taught me that it's not necessary to reap what the libtards have sown. We want all these programs for the employee against small business so what does small business do or is learning to do? Outsource their jobs or pay under the table. Considering I want to pay and hire Americans it makes it all the more disgraceful when I look at work comp, liability, SS tax of 7.5% I have to pay if I hire them when times are difficult so I'm forced to outsource or hire them illegally without those insurances or taxes. I choose outsourcing so I don't break the law. If you think I want to outsource you are crazy, but I'm forced to otherwise my business goes under when times get tough. You have no idea how hard it is to have the American dream of freedom to have your own business until you do it. If you haven't done it talk to a local bar/grill owner when watching a game, or talk to a friend who is struggling and he'll tell you the #1 problem is all the regulation and taxation. You can't have it both ways when people ask for more jobs but more regulation as business will just leave.

Calling yourself the world leader and being right more than wrong is a different story. Other than Jaworski their commentary is a joke.

Can anyone really tell me what's wrong with this statement: "It makes no sense to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a city that's seven feet under sea level....It looks like a lot of that place could be bulldozed." –House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), Aug. 31, 2005 Are you saying it makes sense that other Americans have to pay for other Americans to live in a city that is not viable as a place for habitat? Why should that trickle down taxation and inflation be my problem or your problem? If it's no problem to you don't complain about oil, food, or rising costs of living.

I agree the Repigs shouldn't be elected (sans Ron Paul who was against the war), but do you vote Dem? Dems caused most of our deficit which we get from China and force us to placate to them. Dumbocrats want us to fund every country for aid with or without a dictator, cause massive deficit spending, and then blame China for taking advantage of us when we don't have the money. The Repigs aren't any better anymore. But blame the Repigs and not the Dumbocrats. You should realize the dumbocrats ideas are bankrupting us faster than Bush ever could.

Better country= -Record deficits -Less manufacturing and good paying jobs per capita -Less equity -Less freedom -Less creativity for Americans to open a business without legislation And people wonder why Americans are shipping their work over to China? This country is over if people really believe we are better than before the 1930's. A man could have opened up shop at the corner of the road LEGALLY to sell chairs, and eventually had his own store and employees. That same man has to break about 15 laws to do so now, and once he's successful people are figuring out ways to throw him out of business and sue him. Everyday you lose your liberties and think that the comforts of living on payments with nice furniture and cars that you really don't own is a benefit than you lost the American dream for the facade of socialism and slavery. I would rather be broke and free and rich and enslaved. The slave can be controlled and his wealth can be taken from him under force, the poor man can make himself rich through creativity, and even if he never attains serious wealth he has the happiness of knowing no one can take it from him.

That's right the GOP legislated laws to do so during the 80's when they were the minority. The only thing you can point to is military spending, but the LBJ 60's programs is/was the backbone of record spending. We're called "people who work for a living". The problem is baby-boomers are rightfully retiring with no money saved, and more and more people are learning why work when someone else will give them their FREE MONEY because it's so free. 93% of all taxable contributions come from the top 10% of wage earners. You must suck at math or research. Which one I don't know. They also have this misguided notion that 1 to every 5.5 Americans can receive benefits, when it was 1 out of 12 during the Great Depression. Who mentioned guns or homos? We can't afford Medicare, we can't afford welfare. They make idiots believe we can afford those things. The Repigs (good word by the way) focus on morality, the Dumbocrats focus on "da man". "Da man" pays the bills of this country. How can you live free if people work so others don't have to? How was that part of the make-up of this country? I see you won't address the issue which is the social programs. You see you are part of the problem, blame partisanship, while being a colossal lackey. Neither of the big parties want to address the end of our society, except the GOP wants to do it slower than the Dems, except with Bush adding the prescription drug bill I don't think the GOP wants to go that slow either.

I don't think we should have went to war, and the amount is completely unsubstantiated to what we have in taxes and for that reason alone we should not have went in to change regimes. I agree with you, I just don't see how health care is a right or paid for. Our only rights we have as citizens are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The rest are manufactured to appease a constituency. Just the opposite, the costs will go up much faster. An example would be schooling and college. Do you college tuition has gone up slowly with grants and cheap loans? Just the opposite. The gov't steps in, the insurance companies step-up. The pharma companies love the idea, the insurers are against it because it will be out of their hands. An example is Bush's pharma plan that was pushed by big pharma and insurance companies alike. Really health care should be between the doctor and patient. If the patient cannot pay then he doesn't get service. Doctors don't want to charge and arm and a leg and many of those that entered the field want to help people for next to nothing if they could, but because people think the doctor is "da man" and when he screws up you sue his a** well then you have insurance companies. You see the "I want something for nothing" crowd got what they wanted, and when they got it they didn't want it anymore so they want more protection for themselves thereby screwing up the system more. You want to sue doctors who benefit society by lawyers who don't produce or serve anyone except financial interests? Well then you get insurance. When you get insurance you get them going for their profits to fight lawyers. Why do you think hand surgeons won't operate in Florida after 10pm? I also want to point out that Catholic hospitals used to take care of the needy mostly, with other charity groups out there. The reason why they don't do it as much in the past is because insurance. It's easy to see answers by looking at history and at today. Reality is coming, and if we don't deal with it we are all screwed. We can't afford to pay for everyone. Its over, but we just pretend it's never going to happen. It's happening and we are in the process of losing our credit rating and the rosters are coming to roost over what will be a hyper-depression. It has to be. Those that paid in deserve theirs because it's theirs. The gov't got use of the money at great interest rates while giving back hardly anything. Those that re using social security in the form of welfare need to get off and be trained to work, and those applying must be denied. We can't afford it. If we could I want evidence of how it's possible. It's not, and the illusion of the welfare state is over in 12 years whether we like it or not. The problem with not fixing the system is that it's completely over for American strength. We are becoming a 3rd world nation on the liberalism which is destroying itself with its own laws. Everyone should get hand-outs, everyone should have the right to sue anyone over anything, and the morals that bound American society are being touted as intolerant and in their place comes motherment. Welfare has helped create the single-mother syndrome and helped give men the appearance that their place in the home is not needed for one example. Well I could give further examples, but you get what you want in this country. If most people want to be impoverished, they are getting their wish.

Our economy is spiraling into oblivion. You want Obama with national health care? You want McCain with perpetual war? Anyone who supports the continuance of the welfare state deserves to be thrown in as well. Here are the facts and a great article by Glenn Beck on our future using facts that one cannot ignore unless you are criminal towards future generations. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/beck.deficit/index.html Anyone want to pay that and protect our future? Yeah, I thought not. But we need to feed the poor... but what happens when we are all poor and can't feed ourselves? How can I give money to the poor, as I do weekly, when the future of my country will be poor? I feed the poor, but not by force that will eventually drag us both down. Anyone who votes anything but Bob Barr this election is destroying this country, and I'm not some entrenched libertarian. He's the only 3rd party candidate with political experience who is saying this. $53,000,000,000,000 in debt is more than the entire U.S economy and anyone who votes status quo is the problem.

I do want to add that the Federal Reserve has more to do with what happens to the economy than a President. If anyone thinks voting Obama is going to bring "change" you might be right, especially with a D Congress. The change will be a bigger increase to our deficit than Bush without a war, thereby sacrificing America's future over getting votes today. The democrat party, as it stands, is the most irresponsible party that could exist as a large organization. Not far behind it is the Repubs who would make Clinton blush with all it's spending while calling him a liberal.

If you honestly mean that you have no idea of what happened. Carter couldn't get out of his own way and Clinton was exactly the same. His approval rating was under 40% and 100 day turn-around of the Repubs set off the stock market with the first balanced budget in a long time. You add the tech bubble, which was only a bubble propped up, and the artificially low interest to help prop stocks and create huge corporate imbalances which blew up under Bush I highly doubt you can attribute the success of the economy to Clinton. As much as I cannot stand Bush the fall of the big corps of Enron and Worldcomm were Clinton's undoing, but Bush was the band-leader and people don't look at the world historically and critically and say, "Yes, but it became a beast under Clinton." Anyways, I wouldn't give a D any real credit for the economy, nor can you give a R any credit unless they had the Congress under them to push their bills. Really the first time you can say any President really had any push in an economy it was Bush with a Republican house and senate for 6 years. Clinton's 2 years with the D Congress was also a failure. Moral of the story: the country works better in gridlock than introducing new bills. I will say the new homebuyers bill pushed by the Ds will set our economy back 2-3 years in the housing market. It was a terrible bill.

For McCain this pick was a home-run. This was the move he needed to make him look young and appealing to different spectrums. Basically it's one more reason why my GOP friends will say he's really a conservative. I know better and any true conservative that votes for the GOP, with the exception of Ron Paul, is a mere neo-con

I can't believe one person can post so much on FO issues and pretend they are giving analysis instead of preaching to us. I hope the bastard stays home until he plays his contract this year and then we can talk about talking after he works and becomes a man instead of playing this B.S position of pouting.

I guess you proved you are clueless. The Crusades weren't about killing infidels, but about defending, not being an aggressor to the Holy Land. There were abuses, but they were condemned by the Church. The Inquisition was an interior action of prosecuting formal heretics who claimed to be Catholic, not the prosecuting of material heresy (Protestants) or declared infidels. The Inquisition didn't condemn other religions to death, but Catholics who committed heresy. It was seen as treason after the Moor invasion. You should learn history before making such statements. 93% all the cases of abuse by clergy were homosexual in nature, not pedophilia. Pedophilia is before the age of puberty. The myth is that most of the abuse was pedophilia, when it fact it was homosexual aggression in most cases. I've very familiar with the crisis, I fought against it and the hierarchy who covered it up. What you posted is so stupid I don't know where to start. I never lumped in all Islam, but about militancy taught directly in the Quaran about killing infidels. Are you stupid enough to think the Crusades were about a grail? Where did you learn history? Indiana Jones University? More seriously, it was you, not me, that was equivocating Catholic schooling with the schooling of Muslims. Catholic schools have no history of pumping out young kids who want to kill other faiths at very young ages and taught so by the schools, and even to the point of having a military training in school to kill such infidels. Your equivocation is out of line. You were comparing the improprieties of Catholics with the schooling, and then likening it to Muslims which do have a history of training for violence. If you think the Crusades in principle were evil, you should learn what happened that prompted them, namely Jews and Christians killed in such masses that the blood was said to have been ankle level in the streets. I would never choose someone as a spiritual mentor who believed in spiritual insanity. If Wright was his financial mentor you might have a point, but Wright was his spiritual director. Wright admits his theology and spirituality is black liberation theology. I agree, but it shouldn't be legislated, but a private moral hazard that should rightfully not be tolerated in public.

You are correct. I mean to type legislative.