StupidNation
-
Posts
1,178 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by StupidNation
-
-
The greatest athelete ever was Wilt Chamberlain. He had an over 40" vertical, was as strong as a bull (he could do sit-ups with over 200 lbs behind his head), averaged over 50 points a game with 20 rebounds and over 10 blocks (but they didn't count those) in a season and he could hang off the top of the backboard. He also played in a game where you couldn't run into people and draw a foul like the NBA's new rules for Jordan, Shaq, and the "new" superstars. And no one, I mean no one will break his record with women.
2nd I'd give to Deion Sanders, and 3rd to Bo Jackson. I say Jackson 3rd because he wasn't a good ballplayer. He was good defensively, but his hitting skills left a lot to be desired with his lack of discipline at the plate. He left guys on base way too often when a sacrifice would be sufficient. Deion was a better player at baseball and probably the best ever at CB. Deion had to be accounted for anytime he made it on-base.
-
Never said he wasn't good. Just said he should not be a starter. The Bills must have thought the same thing or they would not have drafted Byrd.
And I guess the fact they play different positions doesn't mean much either? Whitner was the one struggling to defend TEs in coverage getting burned so they put in Scott, particularly in the SD game, to stop the TEs that Whitner couldn't.
If Scott doesn't start over Whitner at SS it's only because of the draft selection and payout to Whitner as an investment. Scott at this point is a better player.
-
I hope he stays the course. We don't want him to fail, we heard so much about that after Limbaugh's comments. I want to see what success is to him and the lefties.
-
Both Q and Fitz are better than Lee so you can't match their WR #2 with ours. Q and Fitz are about equal in my book, with Fitz getting the nod because of the playoffs. Fitz and Q are every bit as good as Owens at this point in their careers. Their QB is a world better than ours, and their offensive coordinator is better than ours.
We just beat them at RB.
I'll take the Cards offense to ours any day of the week.
-
More evidence that the homoerotic culture will resort to anything to make a point.
"Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society" -Aristotle
-
The irony here is a late-term abortionist was on the receiving end of a very late-term abortion.
-
Hear that? . . . . . . . . That's the sound of the Republicans keeping their mouths shut because if they were in power they'd do the same thing. It's not cool, it's not what anyone wants to do, but it needs to be done. It sucks, but GM's immediate demise may have set off an economic tidal wave. Do we know for sure? No, but did you really want to find out?
Well your optimism is a bit misplaced as pretty much 100% of Dems wanted a bailout, and 60% of Reps were against it. The Rs that voted for the bailout where minimal, it was mostly a Dem thing, although some Rs were for it.
I'm not for any of it, and I'm not a R, although I do think Ron Paul is one R I'm with 98% of the time.
-
But I thought DHS wasn't supposed to be concerned with right-wing extremists?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us/01til...ref=global-home
You are such a moron. I'm sure you think abortionists are saints as they are the real murderers. You extrapolate, in a classical jackass manner, that the 1-2 shooting a year is a real threat to the nation. I wonder if you believe we should do that to every group. How about the Black Panthers, La Raza, and other groups who commit thugish crime all year long at a much higher rate.
Do I mean that DHS should? Nope, but to segregate isolated incidents into group politics is ridiculous, political, and extremely dangerous. Black or white people do vicious things for various reasons all through the country. If we made a divide on race people like you would be livid. I dare venture to say the Black Panthers are a bigger threat than anyone listed on the "right-wing" DHS group.
When you advocate Black Panthers on that list I'll take you seriously. Otherwise it's a cheap political point by an idiot.
-
Yeah, everyone who points a gun at you is a victim. He deserves all the rights of everyone else. I'm with Fingon, you do that to someone you don't deserve to live period. I would like to know how everyone else would react.
-
...
Meanwhile, the Bills were hit with seven penalties, including a ticky-tack nudge-in-the-back call that wiped out a fourth-quarter first down in New England territory and changed a scoring opportunity into a punt."
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...terbrook/060912
Some folks "get it" and call it like they see it. Kind of like Bart Scott in 2007 and you all see what the League did to him....
You know, I wish I had access to those games, make a video collection of them cheating and throw it in people's faces. I watch a lot more than Bills games and the league's treatment of them is dispicable. While I like watching football, I also know league owners and management want certain teams to win at certain times. I love LeBron James, but he gets away with murder, same with Shaq and other "stars".
To label such accusations as mere quacky conspiracy theories is the point. To conspire is not something you do in public, so yes we must guess based on evidence. Unlike UFOs and anal probes at 2am I've seen clear evidence of their cheating during games and the refs are clearly allowing madness during the games.
Also, to link yesterday's cheating to today's is laughable. The technology wasn't as good to relay, spy and interpret info as fast or as well 17 years ago. Now they have computer algorithms, advanced relays, and a much better system to be more accurate.
Awesome, awesome post Matt and thanks for the Easterbrook comments.
And everyone, if you think the country is fed-up with the bull-crap in the league with the Pats let me tell you what happened here in Texas when he got hurt. The entire freaking bar screamed and cheered. It's not a Bills vs. Pats, but everyone doesn't like them.
-
But I have to say -- because I see so much of it in so many different places -- all the whining about the Patriots makes me sympathize with them....
As for the tiresome cheatriots talk, they went 18-1 without video help. If you recall, many believe they ran up the scores in 2007 as a response to the Jets turning them in. They proved they could win just fine without the tapes.
Tim I disagree 100%. They cheated and tainted. That's it. They abused the system and potentially stole a SB from the Rams. One of the previous Cheatriots QBs stated they knew 70% of what was coming before the snap. The game is first about match-ups and 2nd on execution. Most of the guys in the NFL are adequate to execute sufficiently so match-ups are pivotal.
Now comes the interesting part to me and no one seems to address it...
Their winning came with an added bonus of vets who went there for less than face-value in the hopes of winning. Players wanted to play there when previously NE was never considered a great destination. You had guys wanting to be traded there and played for less in free agency. Because they stock-piled talent they could then trade down and get extra 1st rounders. There is a compounding effect to this that no one wants to address.
My question would be would they have been 18-1 if Moss was playing under-value to play for them, and getting those extra picks? I say no, absolutely not. They are the team they are because their cheating had a compounding effect. I give credit to Brady as a QB, but would he be the "Tom Brady" without cheating? Don't know... I do know his supporting cast is pretty damn good right now because of the Patriots leveraging.
Lastly, and I've only seen one reporter hit this openly, where are the penalties against the Patriots? They get a free pass all the time. I've seen some blatant holding on the O-line that the refs miss over and over again.
I also, to this day, think that the 4th down play against the Ravens when they called the time-out after the play when the Pats didn't make it was awfully suspicious. The calls in that game were ridiculous, so bad it was obvious that the refs were told to have the undefeated season.
They didn't use "tape" that season to get to 18-1, but the refs were in the tank for them. Go watch that Ravens game and their 12th man in the form of zebras.
P.S The greatest joy I've ever had watching a game, and the Bills are my team, was watching the Patriots lose in the Superbowl. I do believe the refs called that game fairly.
-
Maybe it comes back to the people who do need the government to save their ass. In terms you can understand, WWJD? Would he make sure the poor, sick and needy were taken care of or would he take his ball and go home like a bratty little kid? I guess ya'll are at least separating your religion and politics. Social liberalism is not an evil concept - quite the opposite. It's kind of ironic that the hedonist lefties are the ones leading the charge for this sort of thing.
You're not going to heaven with this kind of attitude.
Sorry but your lack of theology, and ability to reason, is one of the reasons why I even got on this board. I was silently reading statements like this for years wondering how it was unchallenged.
Social liberalism is not an evil concept per se when properly understood, but it is when it is gov't mandated. One cannot steal from one person and give to another. Basically I want to be able to choose who and where I want to give. As to theology Christ says we must not know completely consciously how much and to whom we give, but to trust the money given will be for His sake. That is not the same thing as mandated theft at threat of arrest.
St. Paul says those who do not work shall not eat. Basically the difference between religious charity and gov't mandated social state is simple, but completely misplaced by political liberalism, which (oddly) is also mostly against the social teaching of Christianity (strange how selective Christianity is these days).
-In Christianity it is the individual who chooses to give of their free will and will thereby insure the stability of private property and the difference between liberality and license.
-In Gov't sponsored welfare it is the state which mandates your money under threat of arrest and compromises the most basic right of private property against the welfare of the individual.
People should give of their own accord, not because you say so. You violate the right of private property in order to gain another good of helping another. The law of double-effect does not apply here in morality as the principle act is evil in itself, and you cannot judge consequent acts to justify initial immorality. One cannot do evil in the hopes good comes from it.
Tax me when it comes to things I'm being represented on, but don't violate the rights of private property.
-
[Fed printing fiat currency] + [economy contracting] = [inflation]
Money follows the same law of supply and demand that all other goods and services do. There's no getting around it. You Keynesian lovers better pray that Obama's massive government works program jumpstarts the economy quickly and significantly. Because if it doesn't, we will all be revisiting the late 1970's all over again. And yes, inflation matters. It adversely affects everyone, especially the lower and middle classes.
The problem with your argument is that it goes beyond a sound-byte and guys like Gene and John Adams will never understand until they learn to study solid economic fundamentals.
The projection is we need 4% real growth next year above inflation. If we don't enjoy the ride, and it won't last long. Although on the flip side it will make the next election cycle more interesting when we can forget the question of "how are you holding up?" or "How is your wife and family during all these travels" and it will finally go to "How will this country exist in it's current state in 10 years?"
-
Really? So you see Byrd and Scott? Might be a good idea!
Yes I do. Whitner isn't as good as Scott at SS and he's not a good ball-hawk. If Byrd has instincts Whitner is on the bench if the FO has any balls.
-
Edgar Hoover looks nice in a dress?
Sorry, you failed. It says at the end "nice in dresses". It was written in the plural.
-
Those lists are garbage. Go watch the game. Lee Evans over Steve Smith, Brandon Marshall, Calvin Johnson, Colston and Roddy White? Hahahaha
Whitner is decent in the run, horrible in coverage. He wasn't playing in the box that much last year as he was at FS. Apologists be damned, he will be 2nd string next year or have a break-out year. I'd like to dream break-out, but I see him on the bench if Byrd ends up any good.
-
You say that taking into consideration what the year 2009 has to offer. Most of the reasonable cost of amenities that our nation's citizens enjoy, even for the most rural and isolated parts of this country, were born and sown off the back of the industrial north. Now that everybody is up to par, your kind want to stop paying taxes all together. Figures.
1st Learn to read: never said paying taxes altogether, but property taxes specifically. Most of our country did not have a property tax until they forced everyone to pay for schooling
2nd Most of the people who came here came for freedom, not gov't control no matter where they lived
3rd Everyone up to par is subjective and univocal based on economics. Up to par to me is freedom in any circumstance, not because of what I receive monetarily, or the benefits the gov't gives me. They call such ideas principles, something difficult for you to understand.
Never post again and you might go out on a high note.This according to the idiot who thinks gov't slavery is the high note I should strive to. Congrats!
-
You're sentence structure sure proves your point. If we only had spent $2,000 more per student in your school, maybe you would have written this.
If we had more money, think about how much more education our children would receive.
I guess you just proved you are from Stupid Nation.
People like you equate more money to better education. That relationship is not true. D.C. schools spend more per student than most other communities and they are failing miserably. As a side point, the 1,500 students in the D.C. school voucher program are doing very well. But since those schools are private and not beholden to the teachers union, they are stopping the program after these students are finished.
So you tell me who has the best interest in providing these students a good and safe education?
Champ, my statement was sarcasm. While I agree with you on every point, maybe you failed to realize the point of this thread was to show that more money doesn't equal results, and in fact does more damage than good especially when people privately can do better than any gov't collective system; and while individuals may fail to do some of the things not as well in certain circumstances, I would prefer my freedom over taxation and take the consequences but retain my freedoms.
I'm 100% for vouchers, and I'm 100% against all public education. If individuals want a school, let them pay for it and find benefactors just like private schools. I used to work in a private school where 70% of the kids didn't pay through donations of money and time. I don't believe one can make private property become public property through property taxes, and throw people off the land no matter how good the cause. One cannot do evil in the hopes good comes from it, and property taxes are implicitly a revocation of private property.
-
I look forward to conservatives publicly voicing opposition to a Hispanic woman who grew up in the projects, was previously appointed to the bench by George Bush I, and was previously approved by a number of Republicans in the Congress for her appointed court positions. The war of words between the Hatch/McCain/Powell moderate Republicans and the RNC (Rush/Newt/Cheney) conservative Republicans will be interesting. Conservatives don't like activist judges unless they're active in cases such as reversing Roe vs Wade, Terry Schivo, blurring the lines between church and state, and torture. Keep shrinking that Republican "big tent".
Genius, it was activists that overturned abortion as murder. Asking to restore law is not activism, and allowing someone to be murdered is not activism. While I agree with you on torture, and also the justifications for illegal wars and occupations, you cannot rationally believe the division of church and state meant the blurring of reason and state, and history and state, because reason and history verify defending life part of the values of this country.
-
That doesn't seem to be the blowhard case that is being made.....thinking that getting rid of 90% of regulation is the moral way to proceed as our friend is advocating by returning to the Guilded Age......when we had child labor, no wage controls, a government run by graft and monopolies, and women were begging for temperance because if their husbands were alcoholics they didn't like the idea of lying on their backs to feed their children, not to mention Jim Crow, Lynch Mobs, and Pinkertons and bilking the natives out of their land......
This nation would have boomed if it was driven by regulated capital or not.
There was no greater deposit of virgin natural resources and cheap land in the world at the time.
Except for Argentina, Brazil, and other countries that have similar resources.
Also, the problems of yesterday are nothing in comparison to today. The problems of local theifs is nothing compared to institutionalized theft through today's taxes and through taxes through inflation. Wage controls have not solved anything and have created more problems than they solve.
And women crying for temperance laws has nothing to do with this discussion. There are more alcoholics now then back then, not to mention higher suicide and depression.
All of the other problems such as child labor and the like was not what made this country great or rich. We had freedom and worked for it. Yes there were problems and it wasn't a capitalist utopia, but the unintended consequences of all the regulation will put us on the path of a 3rd world nation.
-
The Guilded Age was just a terrific time to be alive if you were a robber baron.
If you were a child, sharecropper, wage earner, or were owned by the factory store you were probably thinking
communism was worth a looksy.
Yeah, all those people that owned their businesses because all they needed was the sweat of their brow, loved their freedom to live in a country that was guided by morals, and lived in peace were just clamoring for communism. History fully supports your view with all the immigrants from Europe asking for more gov't, I mean it wasn't like they were looking to work and make honest livings, but were asking the gov't to intervene and steal from others because others weren't paying their fair share.
And then your alarm clock went off...
-
- To Obama, promoting fair free trade is about reciprocity of unions. (Who cares about currency manipulation or government subsidies?)
Sadly, even free-traders on the right side don't see the danger in that too. People don't understand currency manipulation, but soon enough they will.
-
I don't live in Calif so maybe someone there has better info, but isn't the problem due to the state being unable to raise taxes due to propositions? I think we're going to see a taste of what limited government looks like and it's not going to be pretty.
Massive cuts in social services, teachers, state employees, prisons, etc. If it works it will be a model for the rest of the country. Not sure that the advocates of limited government want to rest their case on the results of this one. Personally, I think it's going to get ugly.
They are being forced to have limit their gov't, not have limited gov't. I hope you understand the difference. If you want to pick this as the model is ridiculous. Give us a state with income tax, property taxes, right to work state, truly minimal gov't, and reduce regulation by 90%...
Oh wait, that was how the country was founded. Let me know how 1865-1913 turned out. (Hint: biggest rise in wealth in the history of the country).
Also, this is what happens when the productive sector cannot pay for the unproductive sector. Eventually they both fail. If want to see what big gov't does look at the Soviets.
-
Schools are ridiculously over funded already.
Are you crazy? If we had more money think about how much educated our children would be...
What do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
That's because you haven't thought it out except in your own illogical mind. The political right has never tried to stop abortion except when they knew the measure would fail and they could pretend to be pro-life, and people who are against pro-murderers still like the idea of freedom.
Freedom isn't the right to do what you want, but the right to do what is within the confines of morality.