StupidNation

They would have been liquidated for their true value, investors would have bought them and made them profitable again through real values. The country would have seen the whole thing over close to now and it would have been worse short-term, but much better now. Look, we just gave billions to the car companies who took the money and declared bankruptcy and you aren't enraged about that?

The same economists who said it would fix things were the same ones who predicted things were fine before they went upside down. Someone we both like, Peter Schiff, was an is one of the few people who called things the first time and has called this idea insane. You cannot fix overspending with overspending. When did I say the democrat party? I consider most of the GOP liberal man. They too were big spending, liberty destroying mavens of Hell. I will say with the Dems now increasing the power against civil liberties that they once decried they lose that title of pretending to stand for liberties and your defense of that party baffles me. You still think when people say "liberal" it means D, when it can mean R. Liberality is actually virtuous, but both R and D's versions of it are horrible. You are still missing the point where big gov't always fails and cannot sustain itself. That's why the stimulus will never work. NEVER! You cannot make the non-producing sector the focus to produce income. It's impossible. The most you do is inflate the currency and destroy the savings of people who believed in production and savings.

Everyone wants smaller gov't? Unions, large corporations that use the gov't, social service recipients, gov't employees? Oh, and anyone who says they want smaller gov't while simultaneously increasing it isn't serious, and anyone who believes such a clown is blind to reality. And the idea of big gov't is not a fake thing. It might be used a GOP talking point, but that does not make it not real. Look at spending, look at civil liberties eroded, and tell me this make believe thing I'm mentioning doesn't exist.

It's funny how big gov't on both parties now have to re-discover smaller gov't to survive. Why is it only the fed that is getting bigger? With unemployment rising with a surplus, companies that have to liquidate bad debt, where did the stimulus from either last great leader or this leader really do anything other than help destroy confidence in the dollar. Yes Swede, I found it funny that the unions have to take a pay-cut. What a shock...

Liberty is not the right to do whatever you want or can, that's a capacity. Liberty is a the right and freedom to do what you ought. For Liberty U to stop funding what you cannot do as a Christian is essential liberty, not the mistaken license you people believe it to be. Let's take it from the opposite perspective even if you don't believe in objective truth in the matter... If you believe Christ is God and Christ says that this truth will set you "free" is it beyond the realm of reason to think they are simply adhering to their faith and beliefs as to what constitutes liberty? It might be an epiphany for some of you to realize that people who adhere to their beliefs and what they believe about liberty aren't sacrificing liberty by trying to be true to themselves. Lastly, if you want to see hypocrisy look at how even public schools will not allow intelligent design as something to be exposed to the minds of people. I.D is not creationism and you can find atheists who believe it, yet where is the discussion on that? Show me your campaign against the ban against I.D and I'll find your cries about 1st Amendment crap more seriously.

Yes, all you have to do is launch deep every play and Pro Bowlers are made!!! How is Joyner even legit after such a statement?

I really don't think the problem we are facing is anywhere as bad as the problem they are creating. They are scaring off investors, overtaking contracts without requisite law, and destroying investor confidence. Soon we are to have a dollar crisis and that will be worse than all of the above. No one is ready for that and all of the prep we were doing was for unemployment, not destroying our position as the reserve currency.

You guys forgot to mention increase consumption, force policies that are bad for savings, and increase trade imbalances and destroy manufacturing. It's the only way we can survive. Oh, wait... the green jobs are coming, the green jobs are coming!

It's wrong because he's born, but if he was in the womb we should rip him out piece and by piece and suck out his brains... And that's ok because that's what they do in 2nd trimester abortions. Go look at this you creep and come back with the comparison of injustice: http://conservativethoughts.us/wp-content/...sheadonside.JPG You know I'm completely on the side of giving him medicine, but you have no right, or you lack the right to claim moral outrage when that is ok to you.

I'll answer your "pro-life" question since I'm not pro-murder like yourself. You can't fight every fight and you pick your battles. When secularists stop preaching the dogmas of no God, and anti-God, while killing innocent children by the million you'll get my support and many others. I also think that the "minor" status by state provision is a misnomer. I think people can make decisions before 18 and can be responsible for those decisions. Lest we forget men were men at 13 and 14 just 200 and 300 years ago and had their own lives and families on farms. I think people are less mature, but I don't think the young man is completely faultless unless he was actively brainwashed. Also... I don't consider those religions part of Christianity. Christianity, by definition, is the whole package. Someone who jumps and claims to be a Christian is not a Christian without embracing their entire faith and has material and formal apostolic succession. But let's do your hypocrisy bit shall we? Secularists and Darwinists don't do anything wrong do they? -Abortion (kills 10 million a year) -Involuntary euthanasia -Concentration camps -Eugenics and a master race/DNA perfection -Scientific experiments on live subjects destroying cognitive actions -Killed more people in the 20th century than all centuries combined Go ahead, tell me how deep your hypocrisy goes and your pseudo-anger and argumentation lies. I'll be waiting... Remember that the leaders of your religion believe in killing the unborn, have slaughtered countless millions in the forms of secular domination... but I don't want to spoil your brand of fiction too much.

1-2 plays a game is all that separates good from average players. That's why it's so funny when people say "so and so is 95% of himself but better than our other options"... Actually 95% of someone at that level makes them like everyone else.

Actually genius if you read it this has nothing to do with fundamentalist Christians, but the following of a Indian rituals and believes her son to be a medicine man and elder. But nice swipe at Christianity. And if you think your *disclaimer* means anything why carry on about abortion when abortion is never mentioned in regards to the "bozos in the story", and those mentioned in the story are doing it on tribal grounds, not Christian grounds. Not to let you slither from this debate, as you do with others, here is what is said: "Nemenhah Band, a Missouri-based religious group that believes in natural healing methods advocated by some American Indians." Let me guess, you are going to rant on Indian naturalists? Of course not... freaking moron.

I'm just really curious because for the life of me I cannot see how all the fans of socialism, who see more government as a solution, cannot see that the states that are currently more in tune with socialism are failing faster. Strangely enough what is their solution? Cut the budget, spend less, and let the private sector bring money back to the state. How could this not be obvious that the states with the biggest budgets per capita are the same states failing? Honestly, I would be open to reading how big gov't works in a big liberal utopia. I just cannot see how it survives.

When was telling it like it is insane? Jackson has better vision than Marshawn.

You cannot give what you do not possess. Want to bet that a whole bunch of the 73% that failed have GPAs of 3.6 or higher? Modern education has created stupidity, ignorance, and intelligence while simultaneously creating parroting, horrible logic, and a nation of sheep.

"Upon this rock I will build my church." Catholics, and I am one of them (proudly so), teach Christ only built one religion. Maybe you deny it, but the truth still exists. The question for you would be do you believe Christ was God, if you don't then obviously it would make sense that you don't believe that.

If you look at how at how the GOP hijacked conservatism and dangled "morals" to the Bible thumpers, maybe it was the GOP that hijacked bible-thumpers into thinking they could trade morals for big gov't while being lied to the entire way.

I wouldn't mind the quotes from the Bible, but at least make it a just war before abusing quotes of Holy Scripture.

The primary reason of marriage, on both natural and religious arguments, comes from the fact that marriage creates a stable environment for children; secondarily for the mutual love of a man and woman. Children, for the great part of civilization, were considered the most important element of the family. The happiness of man and wife were secondary to that so that "for better or worse" they would raise the children with a proper formation which does require man and woman. This also does not deny secondary marriages reasons like for those who are sterile. The good thing is those families that have large children and they usually are institutionally religious will be the ones who are left on this earth and will be the majority once again. Funny... people who are so against institutionalized religions, and have fought hard to minimize them while using the law to drag them down will have died off in 4 generations and the "who shall inherit the earth" will be those people who actually had children. Got to feel good while they piss on your grave as you mock them now and you have nothing to show for it except empty words.

Come on guys, knock it off, this guy is just trying to make ends-meat.

Yeah, believing in God, morals, personal responsibility, culture, principles, and hard-work is a recipe for disaster. Oh wait, we are trying the opposite now... how's it working? Those evil ol'whiteys sure don't understand the values of tolerance, denying principles and objectivity. Then I remembered the famous line of Aristotle: "Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying civilization."

Good way to address the truth moron.

If God reveals the truth and His will then by adhering makes me pretend I do? So by adhering to divine and nature law is now a pretension then you cannot debate, but merely pretend you do. Adherence is not my input or guidance. Not once did you attempt to refute in principle what I said, but made up happenstance and pretended it was a debate. Clever, but laughable. Read these 2 lines and stop lying to others: "He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matt 5:19 Go read the patristics and early biblical commentaries before you continue to sound more ridiculous than you already do. I couldn't see you making statements to physics departments, but you think because theology uses common language you are capable of debate on the issue. And for reference where confession is refer to John chapter 18 and read patristic language to see if the original followers of Christ did so. You see that's the problem, you are theologically and historically worthless, so here's a suggestion, don't argue the core of the discussion but propose question to dispel your ignorance. I never said people afflicted with homosexuality are an abomination but the act. I have repeatedly divided the act and the person. I have said people should be rejected but the act. All of your arguments so far are empty. So she lacks free-will? She has to have an abortion? You are clueless. Unless you prove that she has to kill then good luck. For a guy claiming theological matters maybe you forget the "forgive" part, and "thou shalt not murder". I never remembered any part in life where doing evil for evil solves anything. Again, learn the theology of double effect before sounding like an ignoramus. I don't think you are posing a question as much as trying to prove me wrong otherwise I would answer this question. So one cannot judge justice even without formal training? So all abused children assume "I was abused, let me go abuse others" or they are impossible to come to the conclusion to judge "I didn't like that so I won't do it myself". You are assuming, falsely, that we are reduced to our education, which was the error of Socrates and repeated again by the anti-tobacco campaigns in schools which have worked wonderfully haven't they? People will do things against their education based on the good they perceive (apparent or real) and based on the desire to be good and responsible or deny their responsibilities to themselves and others. You bash effects not principles, which is like bashing the play of Coy Wire when we forgot someone drafted him and some coach is playing him. I never said to bash children. I help fund children's organizations so I don't know what your point is. You think by proving a circumstance you establish a rule. I've never said children have fully formed reason. I was asserting principles in society. And it also doesn't mean that your assertion makes fact does it? An examination of history, sociology, and philosophy bear this out. The reason why message boards are poor indicators of what to do is you require a lesson in all of these things and even if I do you can just deny them while hiding cowardly behind a computer denying the obvious. It does make them stupid and greedy; and values and principles, which do have different meanings, are not confused in my statements but merely in your mind and maybe the minds of others who either do not or have thought out what a principle is. There is objective truth and while you deny it on so many levels yet "complain" all the time is laughable and sophomoric. You can't really complain about values can you? That's like complaining over pepperoni vs cheese pie, while I say that pizza in principle cannot contain poisons and frankly don't care about the toppings in the discussion. Politics, unlike morality, is mostly a value based and pragmatic system; whereas morality is based on principle either on the natural or supernatural law. You have no grounds to make your statements unless you believe they are founded in principle. Otherwise you are a lunatic ranting instead of a man of principle debating. Ignorance of history is a sure sign of arrogance and stupidity. Maybe we should throw out our history books too and establish the next election solely on polls. Read Crockett's speech "Not Yours to Give" on the theft of gov't against it's people.

If something is against the natural law, and in effect affects others by religious views than opposition is legitimate. The opposition or support of homosexual marriage are both religious standpoints. As such the views of a just society demand just laws. It works on both sides. If homosexuals get the laws passed in their favor than homosexual acts should be not only tolerated, but accepted as normal. Discrimination laws will be passed to stop people from objecting on moral and religious grounds, and in effect "push down others throats" their beliefs with the force of law. I can show you proof through the changes in the American Psychiatric Association's change through lobbyists and infiltration which originally said homosexuality in essence is a mental disorder, to acceptable; and also the change from viewing it as an act to linking it to someone's personhood. People and the law take the APA as the gospel so there is another major issue. Those opposed to homosexuality fall into 2 tiers: those who are against it in principle and say it should not be in public at all and illegal in all instances in public (which was each state's laws until recently with the homosexual agenda), and those who say they are overtaking a well-understood definition to undermine natural marriage and should use a new word entirely to stop confusion behind the well-understood perennial definition of marriage.

God does who is right and wrong, and He has spoken: Abortion is murder Philosophically speaking there is an absolute in right and wrong when taking innocent life: it is unethical and evil If they brought in someone for apartheid would anyone care? Those who think universities just exist for divergent opinions are liars, or ignorant. No one would think the re-institution of slavery as a talk would be permissible while giving them a degree of doctor, yet no issues here as long as many pretend it's just an opinion. The Catholic Church is a Divine institution and as such does not seek the opinions of outside influence as to what constitutes intrinsic evil. Catholics teach abortion is intrinsically evil. The problem here isn't an issue with Notre Dame, as much with the hierarchy for allowing Notre Dame to keep it's title as a Catholic university. If anything Keyes and the others should be protesting the chancellory and the Vatican to strip their title.