MARCELL DAREUS POWER

life starts with a womans intent! lmao, abortion starts in the mind!

did you read earlier that the issue was separate... i said for normal situations, its seems state provided birth control would remedy many unwanted pregnancies for poor people for w/e reason... the other issue which had nothing to do with birth control was should the state still help children who have an irresponsible parent... jim said not giving them the reward would deter them from having more kids, obviosuly this is not always true, probably most times its not, so the question remains, if a poor couple have kids and need assistance, should the state provide that? and even if its a welfare queen, and state rewards stop, will she stop? she still gets some child support, right? o the extent that we now have to help the woman who just lost her husband, her job, her health and is on her way to jail. The only thing missing is the woman mumbling "It's only a flesh wound." And I can't speak for whatever state you live in, but come to California, say you're poor, and get all the free birth control you want. It's getting people to use it that can not be legislated. its called reality, if poor people dont have access to bc, then the chances go up that they will have an unwanted pregnancy.... no? asking people to not have sex is like asking people to not exercise or even eat food. its called human bonding/physical needs...lol you dont live in reality if you deny this. and the sad thing is, those against state provided bc will complain about welfare and the burden it has on the state... the welfare queen is a whole other can of worms, but either way, which has nothing to do with bc but state assistance to those kids regardless...

and this always works? what if a woman keeps having kids for whatever reason? shes an !@#$? what if her husband leaves? loses his job/her job, goes to jail, gets sick, etc etc... god forbid, even if a poor couple cant really afford a couple kids, what if they want kids regardless? again, should the state provide birth control for poor people to help remedy some of this?

http://www.welfareinfo.org/payments/ man thats some great reward! didnt know they were living a life of luxury... the blame is clear here. the woman is irresponsible, here is the question? will you sterlilize her, lol, or will you provide state services for those children? hopefully, you dont say let the kids starve...

What most are saying, that you fail to grasp for some reason, is we don't want the state to continue to "reward" people for having children.

so what happens to the child? this applies to people who dont want poor people to have access to birth control from the state... but either way, you cant force birth control or sterlize people, i think....lol so yeah, what happens to the child? dont worry about disease or basic science, that will complicate things for u...

are you for population control? should we jail poor people for having kids? and at what point? and, who pays to put the woman in jail...?? 1- let poor kids die 2- let the state help with birth control for poor/middle class people 3- let the state help with poor children... 4- enforce population control on poor people ( put poor women in jail). combo of 1 and 4 alright, now pick one... this is why the right is sick in some areas and very dogmatic- regardless of how irresponsible it is, its not the childs fault... yet you still dont want the state to help that child... there is the issue of being practical, i highly doubt you will jail a poor woman for having kids. at least i think... im hoping you want the child to live, i hope... if you are pro life- which i am, then you should want the state to provide birth control for poor people. - what is the other option? within reason or even out of control birth rates, there is something disturbing/orwellian about allowing rich people to have kids and not poor people... or even jailing people or sterilizing people for population control... but hey, thats just me...

money is also created from debt, the money loaned out does not come from deposits or interest, rather debt... ie inflation...

yeah, carder is the much better athlete, and morrison is better. mckillop gets cut

yes! in fact, didnt you know that most homeless people choose to be homeless and mentally ill! in fact, if you offered them a decent job right now, they would turn it down! !@#$ THOSE POOR PEOPLE!

HILARIOUS, " they cant cut me if they cant find me" --- !@#$ you mccargo!!! bastard!

yeah calvin is pretty good. might be the best player in the nfl... and its preseason... lol wtf

dwan edwards- beware!!!!!!!

spit all over the place,lol just a question- the righties always complain about welfare for families with tons of kids they cannot afford. obviously you cannot stop people from having sex so the options are...( nevermind epidemiology and its cost with no available contraceptives) 1- let poor kids die 2- let the state help with birth control for poor/middle class people 3- let the state help with poor children... ok, pick one!

btw, this is why people hate bankers... giving out promissory notes on other peoples gold got you killed in the old days. since credit dried up, states then wanted a central bank to cover loss and implement regulatory action to create a more sustainable risk taking economy... so now, if they cant cover the cost, many times the fed will just bail them out... its pretty much a free loading profession. the banker can collect tons of interest on value that is not even there, and when market discipline hits, the fed bails him out... this is why many people think the fed should be nationalized along with other big banks. since the taxpayer is always bailing them out, seems like some of these great profits should go to better public use. like i said, from my understanding, either you want your atm to work everyday, and have the ability to get milk on saturday, or you want to stick it to the bankers... or you say !@#$ it, im a communist, nationalize the banks/credit institutions... lol

it can be very problematic and make the business cycle incredibly extreme. 1- if there is a bank run, there simply is not enough gold or other tangible assests to back currency( ie debt). 2- during a economic boom, more credit is given out, and usually in a free market this will come down because there simply is not enough money in the money supply to cover the debt.( e.g. housing crisis)... this still happens now but to a lesser degree because central banks can manipulate currency and soften the blow of a return to real market value. 3- given extreme nature of the business cycle with a gold standard, a political system might not be sustainable, riots, food shortage, etc.. 4- we dont have a global standard, so why would a countries financial institutions put themselves at risk in a global unchecked market? austrian economists would argue a gold standard would incentivize banks to not lend out so much credit, knowing inflation would cause a huge sink hole in the economy, but i dont think this is reasonable. during a boom cycle for whatever reason, a bank and its shareholders must maximize profit, during the boom, why would they neglect this? it seems giving out credit to enhance profits would be inevitable regardless of a currency standard. if not, they will go under during the boom... im not sure all of this is correct, but this is just a surface idea of why i think a gold standard would not work... im sure there are economists on here that know way more than i do about austrian economics... yes, we might have less value of our dollar, and constant inflation, but a gold standard would make it really hard to keep an economic system stable (the volatility of banks failing is too problematic)... the fed may devalue the dollar, but at least there is no riots in the street... it could be a false dichotomy, im sure there are alternatives... im not sure how this is even possible( having only a gold standard) this is why with any political system, whether de facto or in reality, a central bank/nationalized bank is inevitable... jmo you dont even need a gold standard, what the issue really comes down to is a central bank or no central bank...

how so? lets say they keep smith as the 3rd qb and 6th wr, and then get to keep carrington instead of keeping martin... or tank instead of martin... ur getting the extra player

but doesnt smith playing 5 roles allow you to keep a couple extra defenders? isnt that the reason for his spot? smith being active as ur 3rd qb/6th wr allows you to keep an extra db or dlineman on gameday...

suprise player not cut- thigpen suprise player cut- gonna say dwan edwards. dont think that will happen, but carrington looked better vs detroit, and has more upside, and power/size... carrington as the 4th dt is just as good and allows us to keep the upside of gilbert as ur 9th swing dlineman... dwan was playing late in the 4th, and spencer was not so.... thats my suspicion

Quarterbacks Tight Ends Running Backs Fullbacks/HB/TE Ryan Fitzpatrick Scott Chandler Fred Jackson Corey McIntyre Tavaris Jackson Lee Smith C.J. Spiller Tyler Thigpen Tashard Choice 　 Wide Receivers Guards Tackles Centers Stevie Johnson Andy Levitre Cordy Glenn* Eric Wood Donald Jones Kraig Urbik Erik Pears Colin Brown David Nelson Chad Rinehart Chris Hairston T.J. Graham* Zebrie Sanders* Marcus Easley Brad Smith Rian Lindell / John Potter / Brian Moorman / Garrison Sanborn 　 Ends Defensive Tackles Outside LBs Inside LBs Mark Anderson Kyle Williams Nick Barnett Kelvin Sheppard Mario Williams Marcell Dareus Arthur Moats Kirk Morrison Chris Kelsay Spencer Johnson Nigel Bradham* Kyle Moore Dwan Edwards Bryan Scott Alex Carrington Tank Carder* 　 Cornerback Strong Safety Free Safety Stephon Gilmore* George Wilson Jairus Byrd Aaron Williams Da’Norris Searcy Delano Howell* Leodis McKelvin Justin Rogers Ron Brooks* 　 PS DORIN DICKERSON HB ZACH BROWN RB KAMAR AIKEN WR MARK ASPER C ZEBRIE SANDERS OT JARRON GILBERT DE CHRIS WHITE LB ISAIAH GREEN CB

having smith allows us to keep " potential prospects" he is the emergency 3rd qb, special teams, wildcat, rb, wr, etc... you guys act like everyone should be a star, thats not the point with smith, its being smart about ur roster... ugh

wouldnt suprise me if smith moves to wr and tavaris is inactive for a few weeks... might keep thigpen

12-4 for high 10-6 for low... the team is loaded, especially in the trenches. we have a top 15 qb who can sling it... we are very young and we have great weapons in johnson, jones, nelson, graham, chandler, spiller and probably a top 3 back in jackson... we have a top 10 d coordinator and top 10 o coordinator who have proven already they can win together... we might have the best dline for a pass rush in the nfl... 3 all pros on the dline possibly along with a big time edge rusher in anderson... put up or shut up...

For 3rd stringers man... the roster is set

what if girls liked me? what if flutie started vs the titans? what if communism won? what if dctom wasnt an !@#$????