StupidNation

If Obama really was worried about his brother having a drug addiction he would allocate rice and beans to him monthly. The expense would be under $100/mo easily. The point is he has done NOTHING to be his brother's keeper. NOTHING!!! If his brother was a drug addict where was the desire to put him in rehab, if he's not and just starving where is his desire to feed him? Sorry the pandering jacka** who's my brother's keeper, i.e. welfare goon, is desiring more money from me. Being a Constitutional lawyer makes him qualified to run the country without any administrative history? If you are serious you are a complete moron, if you were joking I thought it was funny too. The role of the president isn't judicial, that's the role of congress, it's to administrate primarily. That's why governors have traditionally been presidents more than senators. Ronald Reagan had more experience than Obama. He was governor from 1967-1975 as the administrator of the largest state in the union. You seriously weren't thinking they were equal, unless of course you were kidding again. Comparing a governor with a senator in experience is night and day. The governor can't just vote "present" when he doesn't want to hurt his political career like Obama.

The Catholic Church does not teach or preach the hatred of other religions to the point of death. All the founding of great institutions from hospitals to universities are a product of the Catholic Church. While I agree that it's members can and have been vicious, it's no comparison to the teaching of tenets of belief that lead one to act in those ways. The Catholic Church condemns homosexuality and pedophilia, and anyone who does so does not act in the name of the Church but their own personal viciousness. The same cannot be said of Islam which explicitly states infidels are to die. Of course it depends on what type of Muslim you are as they are vast in their beliefs. The issue of Obama specifically is that he doesn't have patriotic qualities such as not wearing a US flag pin or put his hand on his heart during the pledge of allegiance and he was part of a church that taught all Christian ethics are about the retribution of the black man over the white man. Black liberation theology is marxism with racism. To say that Rev. Wright was his mentor is the same thing as saying that a racist anti-American man was your mentor and spiritual leader. If any other of the candidates had such close affiliations with Wright the media would have destroyed them. Well Hannity tried at least... LOL Also, the term tolerance is used way too loosely. Who cares if someone is intolerant if it's their belief as long as that belief doesn't harm others or that belief does not teach to harm others? Maybe your intolerance of their intolerance is the same hypocritical circle. I don't care if some redneck was racist, or that some of the homeboys in Compton are racist as long as they teach to act on it but use it as segregation teachings, not that I agree with it personally, but we cannot police everyone's level of tolerance as a litmus to their lives, unless they run for PUBLIC office.

I'm really excited about Edwards this year. After seeing him in his first start against the Jets he definitely showed he is above average with his accuracy and intelligence. I'm excited to see him in action.

Actually, they are true. Obama was schooled in a Muslim school as a boy, and he did not put his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance. There are pictures to this effect. And trust me, I'm no friend of John McCain either. If anyone here wanted real change for America it was Ron Paul. Obama isn't change, he's just a change of degree: more socialism and more taxes. Ron Paul would have shook up the establishment. If people thought we really needed change he was the guy as he wanted to abolish departments including income tax, and bring our troops back home. Paul wanted a new foreign policy, go back to sound money and stop inflation, and promote true free trade without managed trade from protected countries. That was real change. Obama will give us a different degree than what we have now. Sadly, it will help destroy this country faster economically than people realize. He will increase the national debt, by his own numbers, worse than Bush.

As much as Obama is trying to seem like a real bleed-heart to help everyone, I must admit his radio commercial tonight had me laughing. He said emphatically, from a speech, "I am my brother's keeper!" Ohhhh reeeeeaaaaalllly? How's your brother keeping in Africa? How well are you taking care of him? Really what he should have said is "I am your brother's keeper" meaning how he plans on stealing from us and giving it to others. If Obama gave a rats a** he would send off $1,000 to his brother. What infuriates me in this 2 minute radio commercial is all this talk of changing lives and really caring is that he doesn't care at all. How this man is even considered without any real requisite experience shows how far we have fallen. This is not a vote for McCain speech either. At least we know McCain is a corporate sell-out, it's just Obama's use of the words "fat-cat" and other funny statements while he does nothing for his half-brother. Sorry, the guy is a jacka**, and anyone who votes Dem (with few exceptions) is a jacka**, and the same goes for almost everyone who votes Rep with few exceptions.

Yes, and they are not bad. Yeah, about 7 million total if you count the total who have expatriated. Look up the term "expatriate from U.S". The current number is now closer to 8 million. But being an ignoramus is something I see you are comfortable with. Your next comments tell me you are clueless. I never mentioned any of those countries except as to say they don't have our taxation. Connecting the dots is only possible in coloring books huh?

Costa Rica, Argentina, Uruguay, Belize, Monte Carlo and places like that. The majority of countries have less taxation than the U.S. I don't know about France, but all of Africa, Australia, South America, and Asia has less taxation with many not having an income tax but a VAT (Uruguay just added an income tax), and none of the countries I listed have death taxes.

These taxes should be eliminated: -Income taxes -Social security -Estate taxes Those are an enslavement in life and sadly in death. What if I don't pay them? I go to jail. Taxes like sales, or a future VAT I'm fine with as long as it does not support the over-size gov't the liberals gave us (and by liberals I include the GOP which may ruffle feathers). I'm more of a state right guy, although I do believe fundamentally that a Federal gov't should exist, just not at this size or almost complete inefficiency. The 1st 2 are based on my income. If my income does not match what they think it should be, or what they think I'm screwing them I go to jail. Sales tax or a VAT is more like, "you want to buy this? Fine, pay us." That doesn't require a bookkeeper, and there is no threat of imprisonment. The estate tax is double taxation on your family. It's probably one of the most un-Constitutional beasts that has ever existed. A man works hard, pays his share, so they tax his family for his hard work. When families worked as a business, and still work as a family business the problem is magnified because the sons and daughter helped the business, and their labors are allocated in their parents names, which eventually gets wiped out by the gov't because their machine is too big. Over 7 million people have revoked citizenship to this country and have left for this reason alone. Successful people who would be a benefit to our economy are leaving, and this country will not exist as liberals think it will in 30 years. If they think small gov't fans like me are wrong, they will forced to accept I'm right in absolute chaos in the near future.

He's not worth the franchise tag, sorry to bust anyone's bubble. The best WRs find ways to produce, as evidence by a guy like Steve Smith. Evans is not that caliber and paying him like a top 5 WR is not smart. Emotionally we want to keep him, but not at a high price point. He's not worth Larry Fitz money, and he's should get paid like Bernard Berrian (who was over-paid.

Classical definition of science: knowledge or a system of knowledge of general truths or the operation of general laws based on principles of thought. Scientia, as it was classically understood has always meant a body of known things by PRINCIPLES. Metaphysics is a science, the highest of them all. No, it does not fit the high school definition of science taught today, but those are the facts of the etymology and philology of the word. To say God is incompatible with science is completely incorrect. God is incompatible with experimental sciences based on empiricism and the collection and theories of quantitative research, but not by science's historical understanding of the world as understood for 4,000 years. Have you ever read ancient Greek works on science you would see this meaning, and it has passed through the ages from Socrates to Boethius to Aquinas to Pasteur to mean these same thing until recently where empirical sciences usurped the broader meaning of the word. Modern schooling... have you really treated your students so poorly? 100 years ago this was common knowledge to any college grad.

I cringe to think many people here think their arguments go into the realm of deep thoughts with Jack Handy. Metaphysics if the queen of all science and all other sciences are subject to it. Metaphysics makes no claims as a substitute for other sciences, but makes generalities as to all of them. When biology or chemistry dictates to metaphysics it's beyond their scope as the one is empirical and matter, and other is spiritual and abstracted from mater. Biologists will say all life is in flux materially in regards to the body, a metaphysicist can say, "This is John despite his matter in constant flux." The problem with all the arguments here is that they are based on false suppositions, poor constructed contradictions and contraries posed as consistent with reason, and finally that I'm a lemming for not believing 2+3=blue. Take this gem by Dr. Sam Harris just posted above: "faith when it comes to metaphysics doesnt make sense." Really? Why? Because he said so. Faith is not a quantitative thing whatsoever, and is therefore beyond the physical. Metaphysics means literally "beyond physics" and if something cannot be quantified it's metaphysical. God is spirit and is not quantifiable such as where is He and where is He made of questions. That's juvenile and sophomoric. Take the word justice and apply those same criteria of questions. Justice is not quantifiable, and to quantify God into your conundrum is just as preposterous as to have a dog tell you its more intelligent than you. Maybe the dog i... well nevermind. I think the real answer for all these arguments against God existing is precisely because God exists. No one protests the existence of easter bunnies precisely because they don't exist. Imagine spending your time over and over proving something which doesn't exist, like unicorns, and expect people to think you are sane. Welcome to that society. How do bees make honey, or birds make nests for their young without training? Who gives those instincts without learning? Why do salmon run up the stream to lay their eggs? Why do humans strive for happiness even if they seek it in ridiculous things? In this life there is a consistent design which is definite and provable. There is no such thing as a causeless effect. All effects come their source as all designs need a Designer. Life works in a harmony not understandable independently, just as ants do not know why they build a nest, how natural food chains are for harmony although each part doesn't contemplate it's own reasoning in the chain, but they do by design by a Designer. Whether you deny that truth is not relevant, it's clear God designed this world.

Because someone said so. Didn't you get the memo?

I think you switch Youboty with McKelvin until McKelvin shows more as a CB. 1st rounders shouldn't start or play period until they are NFL material.

Do you think he's serious or just plain STOOOOOOPID?

I don't have health insurance. I should help bankrupt the nation by getting it and leaving my grandchildren the mess? It's no one's right to destroy the country out of selfishness. No one has the right to health insurance, or cars, or houses. If anything being self-employed and being forced to pay double social security is stopping me from getting health insurance. Welfare idiots are taking the ability away from myself to get health insurance by paying a 15% tax. I lost my freedoms and under the Constitution I have right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness not slavery under imprisonment for not helping support others. When the gov't takes away my rights to forcibly pay others by way of imprisonment I'm enslaved and I'm not free. It's no one's right to enslave me to prison for not paying tax. You are missing the point of who has control and who is losing control of their freedoms and rights. If you think it's his right to enslave me than maybe you believe in slavery.

This is a disgrace to the Catholic Church and these nuns should be censured from doing so and then excommunicated if they provide such ridiculous behavior.

Consider by way of analogy all biologists believed maggots came from rotten meat. Does that discredit biology any more than cultures who assumed mythology? Your analogy is horrible.

Aquinas abstracted them from Aristotle, but Aristotle never formulated proofs in dialectic fashion. To answer your question "Who moved the the First Mover" then excludes a first, which is a contradiction since the first cannot be first and not the first simultaneously. Of course your 10 year old knowledge of philosophy knows that. Something cannot be first and not first by reason it was moved itself simultaneously. This is demonstrative as all causation must come from something is moved from a Primary and not moved by necessity or it would be an intermediary and hence no terminus from which started causation. I know that might not seem demonstrative, but it is. Your denial or acceptance of such a demonstration from logic is of no consequence, just as if your acceptance or denial you write on a message board is of no consequence as truth is independent of ourselves. You know, all the stupid retorts of philosophy come from that stupidity which doesn't want to understand logic. "Well if God made everything, who made God? Who moved God?" etc. Well if God is the First Mover there cannot be another first. If God is the efficient cause of matter there cannot be another effecient cause. The word first is designated as the state of being, not as something in continual fluctuation unless we are speaking accidentally and not substantially. To make it really simple for you it's like saying "My first wife's name is Deborah." And then reply, "Yah, but who was your wife before her?" They are demonstrative despite your poor logic and denial of reason.

Stay in France because you are dreaming. The man was under-rated for the first few years in the NFL. He obviously had the talent. He threw 27 TDs which was a good number for Jim Kelly in a year not playing the full year and not passing on the goal-line. If he did he would have had 30+ TDs. The guy is under-rated, and his 3 yrs of glory are more than most QBs put up in their entire starting career TD wise. The guy, if healthy, is still a 3500 yard QB with 28 TDs, and one of the gentlemanly QBs ever to have played. Do you know what won me over about that guy? A no name QB at some D-II school wrote to him saying he was his inspiration. What he didn't expect was a hand-written letter and a signed jersey from Warner. How can you not want guys like that succeed?

Why doesn't he make welfare a "totally personal issue" and leave it to charity as well?

I'm at the point that if Peters comes he comes. If not he doesn't. His attitude on the TEAM will be the problem, not the money.

You mean the injury plagued Losman who hasn't really been healthy at all in most of his seasons as a Bill? [/sarcasm off] The sky is falling

Actually the left is in power. I don't consider the GOP right, but soft-left. Can you tell me most of the member of the GOP in the 80's would have supported half the crap in the last 8 years? I can tell you that 45 years ago the vast majority of the GOP would call this version "liberals".

He believes I'm fiscally responsible for people I don't even know and choose not to work, so why in the hell wouldn't be responsible for a brother who needs some money? Oh, that's right... the bleed heart jerks of this country believe it's right if I pay my share, but they won't be the slightest bit charitable by example. Brilliant!

Do you even know what you are talking about? Even remotely? McCain won't "lose" houses. They are already lost to over-valuation. Alt-A and prime borrowers are defaulting right now because of over-valuation and buying another house before they default on the first. That's not McCain's problem. The gov't shouldn't bail out the housing crisis. People bought over-valued houses and being taxed through inflation isn't helping in the long run, and it doesn't help the general population as a whole. Worst of all is that it slows down the collapse rather than letting it happen and fixing the economy sooner. I should know, I lived in Phoenix the last 8 months as an investor. A complete fall-out of bad paper is preferable to letting this bleed into the public at large for bad lending practices and poorly thought out home-buying in an over-valued market. If I buy a house 80% more than it's worth is it other people's responsibility for my stupidity, and then force my children and grandchildren to pay down my debt because I'm an idiot?