murra

I can just picture Bobby at his State of the Union Address. Chewing Gum and shouting profanities about execution.

I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that it's the end of the US as we know it and Obama will be your knight in shinning armour?

Being in college myself, I don't understand why people make comments like that without understanding some important historical references. To claim that it can't possible get any worse is honestly the precise cop-out that many of the democrats hide behind to hoax you into getting them into office.

Ok good.

Really?

This has exploited ESPN for what they are. The NFL SHOULD do something about it (ie, research it, suspend if true), because Favre significantly decreased the integrity of the game. I have heard of a team picking up a FA recently cut by their next opponent in an attempt to learn about their gameplan and system, but helping another team willingly is absurd beyond belief.

Evans was a product of a not-so effective Offensive Coordinator, and even this year does not receive many catches. Jennings benefited of a pass-happy Favre who tried his best to pile on stats to what he thought was the end his career. If Evans spent his career with GB, you wouldn't be able to compare the stats. I agree with the other poster, why do you keep selling Evans short?

I don't understand you.

And that's a fair assessment for you to make. Regardless, all it shows to me is that you like to dance around topics by refuting stories as being valid when they were just an attempt to personalize what is generally an impersonal topic.

You're trying awfully hard to be offended on a message board. My statement implies what it does, but you missed the point if you think that it was all people who dislike bush are brainwashed. Instead, it was all people who irrationally dislike bush may lead to some negative overall implications on our government.

Fantastic decision to rescind your previous opinion of me sir.

You're not a mind-reader or a reader either I guess. You realize I was upset because of the bolded word, right? "without really understanding why, they abandoned their reasons and their political alignments"

Amen.

Why did you take that from what I wrote? I worked hard to write it out in a manner that would help you understand my distaste in the irrational bush-hating by telling a story. I don't care that they were anti-bush and left their party. I care that they didn't know why. They just responded with simple retorts that did not justify reason to not vote Reynolds.

It's a shame really. I was doing some volunteer work for Tom Reynolds when I was still in Buffalo, and I remember I went door-to-door to homes which had a registered republican. All was well, and then I hit one street where all the registered republicans had turned against their party. Each time they failed to recognize that I was campaigning for Reynolds, and displaying interest as their constituency representative. Each house on this street had apparently become obsessed with Bush-hating, and in response to everything I said, they made an anti-bush related comment. What I took from that day was that the street (for whatever reason) had all succumbed to the unfortuanate Bush-bashing that our media presented us. Because of this, without really understanding why, they abandoned their reasons and their political alignments. From this I understood that one, the "American" is extremely hypocritical, and two, once you're brainwashed you can't go back. As far as hypocritical goes (and this is where I love that people hate bush), everyone pretty much was behind Bush after September 11th and his voyage to Afghanistan. It was a unified America. It's so sad that people don't become American until something so drastic and devastating occurs. Regardless, they were all pro-war. Then a few liberals decide they like terrorist rights, and one thing leads to another, and the media coherts us into believing only Bush wanted to go to war. Things like this upset me, but it seems to be a little bit of a trend in America. It takes something serious for us to get riled up. Sometimes we chose the correct response, but sometimes we don't (FDR) and it fails us for a long, long time.

That's fine. You're falling for it. You're the protege "Liberal Student" who believes they're being intellectual, and thinking for themselves, but fail to recognize that in their rants (like the one you had above this) undermine family values and refer to those who work hard as hoarding money. I think your vicious cycle comment which I failed to allude to earlier was the false impression that was recited to you over and over by whatever liberal mentor has most recently brainwashed you. You can call me an !@#$, and a right-wing whatever, but the truth is, I've made no attempts to make decisions for other people, and I do not support that. From what it sounds like to me, you do. And if you think that you'll just fall for "it is time for change", and that everything will change for the better, then hopefully in 15 or 20 years you'll wake up, and realize what the change brought us? More government, and less security. If you like people to make decisions for you, and if you like to call those who are wealthy money "hoarders" thats fine. But you just need to realize that you're supporting someone who will come in and tell that person how to spend their money. They want to control your life. The sooner you realize this the better. Some never do.

It's almost impossible to get this point across. People consistently reject it. It's not a simple cry out of conservatism here, Obama is worse of a character for America than Bush. Unfortunately its not "cool" to hate on Obama, or exploit his wrongdoings like the media has done for about 10 years with Bush. I think that finding justifications for how Obama is socialist is considerably easier than those who are claiming that he is not.

Its this very argument that upsets me with America. He should not feel guilty for his wealth. You should feel guilty for wanting him to spend away his money on something he doesn't want to. That is what I'm arguing. That's cool that you want to spend 70% on charity. Hopefully when you have a family you'll want to save for the benefits of your child's future before you decide so rashly. I get it, we have differing opinions. I feel that if you inherit your fathers income, your father was successful and intended you to be so. He should keep his money, and maintain his family name. My entire goal in life is to make sure that I can instill a positive affect on my family, and raise one that can be successful for generations. On me being extreme on claiming Obama is socialist: Yeah, I think he is socialist. I think the universal health care plan is just an addition to the FDR style New Deal crap that led America to think that increased taxes are the solution. All of Obama's claim are words that really scare me like "fairness" and "equal" because he misuses these normally peaceful words to substitute for the reality of his absurd and leftist positions. I can't really argue that Obama is socialist yet, because he is hiding as best he can behind his ideals which have social values. It wont be until he wins that people open their eyes and see the destruction he'll cause, but unfortunately that may be too late. In the end, I don't know why I'm trying to debate you, and I mean to belittle you again, but see for yourself, the man and his wife have given us enough reason to believe he's trying to drive America in the very direction as leaders who have brought their nations down time and time again: His wife. Himself. And of course Joe the Plumber.

First of all, there was no need for your attempt at defining words to make yourself look smart. You're wrong, we are a democracy. A representative democracy, not a republic. Representative democracy enables men to represent their constituencies. This is necessary when you're dealing with a nation as large as ours, so save your "we're not a democracy bullsh*t for little kids," its a childish claim and a blatant cop-out on the topic at hand. Next (notice I'm ignoring your ignorant attempt at sidelining my socialism claim), I'd like to discuss your assessment that liberals are not trying to make everyone equal, allow everyone to have equal rights. This is where the main issue lies, and while you talked about tax breaks and made it all sound nice and pretty on paper, you fail to recognize the reality of the propositions of their "movement". Its not as simple as, oh give them tax breaks, pay for schools, otherwise do you want children to starve to death. No, its much much much farther beyond that. The people who are attempting to dissent the whole tax break thing are always made out to sound like nazis. I think that in almost all situations the liberals would prefer to avoid the situation of poverty by applying their pathetic attempts at equalizing everyone. Thankfully, Hillary did not win the primary, or then we would be in real trouble with this. Obama, however, is showing more signs of being a puppet, more so than Bush, which scares me. Anyone hiding behind "change" as their campaign slogan really scares me, considering that is typically the point of an election. He's trying to branch out to the anti-war America who are mostly not aware of his fascination with socialist policies. Social programs directed at curing the poverty issue in the end infringe greatly on the middle-class who has worked hard to get where they are and does not deserve anyone taking away their money with excessive taxes. These people have forfeited their moral values in an attempt to make everything equal. They have done whatever they can to make those hand-outs (the same ones you for some reason pretend did not occur often) as easy as possible to receive. You're probably going to ignore most of what I said, and argue this last point, then ask for more examples, which I'll gladly provide, however I'm going to class now and wont be back until later.

"Baby, you're so money, and you don't even know it man!"

It's a premature assessment I am willing to make. I have long said (not on these boards since I'm a new member obviously), that while I can't favor much of the republicans who are deserting their conservative values, I certainly cannot favor the democrats who are consistently trying at great lengths to make everyone equal. We're supposed to have equal rights, but we're not supposed to be equal. The whole point that makes our democracy so great is that you and I have the same chance to make it big. With that now possibly diminishing as the dems try to resolve poverty issues [refer to joe the plumber video where Obama actually says what he and the other dems have been thinking], we're blatantly heading into a more left social realm, and its hurting our freedom. I used the socialism because that's pretty much what that is, when you try to make everyone equal. You'll refute that because it is an ugly word, but thats just you dancing around reality.

I took this poll as saying, would I be able to sacrifice Obama being the president, if the Bills won the Superbowl. Logically, I selected that I would prefer for my candidate to win. While I really do not support McCain, I certainly do not support socialism and I would gladly sacrifice the Bills never winning the Superbowl for America to maintain and preserve its constitutional claim to democracy.

Hey, if you have a television, turn on ESPN.

Yeah. It was a trick question.

Do you have an answer?