StupidNation

So I was right about Bush... He said yes to extending them benefits, but no to the stimulus: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081120/ap_on_...obless_benefits Come on guys, your partisan look on things blinds you and you should TRY to appear objective.

The arguments made for the weak dollar were by the Fed Reserve who want to devalue their foreign debt and politicians who don't want to curb spending while pretending that the 1 or 2 month increase in exports is good enough. The "weak dollar" argument was proposed in Argentina, look at what happened to them in 01 and 02. We are at an all time low in manufacturing, and the weaker dollar has hurt us as manufacturing is leaving for deregulated countries. No country has our debt and we can't pay. We need to slash and burn a lot of programs, stop wars we won't declare in Congress, bring our troops home and stop the Empire, have Congress to grow the balls to demand a Constitutional position on war and not to give the president authority without the responsibility on Congress to do what they were elected to do and protect the Constitution. Both parties, with few exceptions, have given away their Constitutional powers to the Prez so that they cannot be held accountable when the crap hits the fan.

Here is what they should bail-out: the dollar. Stop printing money we don't have, stop spending on programs we don't have money for, and make the politicians tell the truth about our deficits and what it means to the American public in the next coming years.

Giving money to prolong unemployment, ok fine, but giving money for another stimulus? What has the stimulus done? I see you brilliant dudes who are calling for Bush as an idiot fail to realize your own idiot position. More consumption is not the problem, but the destruction of the dollar. If Bush has rejected the plan until they drop the stimulus is he "bad" or is he just temporarily smart? If you guys were less partisan hacks and more objective I could see your points, but as of right now you are clueless. Tell me what the stimulus packages have done. Bush may have threatened to veto the bill because of the stimulus, not because of extending benefits. Bush has already proved to be a liberal in economic policy by destroying everything with big spending. It's even funnier because some of your have been criticizing Bush for tax cuts and deficits but because he won't throw more money at the problem you now have a problem with him not deficit spending.

Slightly different take... Labor will be hurt and you will see more out-sourcing unless Obama has the guts to gut NAFTA and other managed trade agreements which aren't free at all. Enviros and lawyers get a big boost. Perversity, oops diversity, will definitely increase. I think his election helps conservatives, but hurts the GOP. The GOP will be more conservative because of him, but they won't actually become conservative with there strong neo-con footing of perpetual war and big spending. I think the GOP will attempt to capitalize on making Obama the boogey-man to appear to be conservative. I honestly believe this next few years will either throw this country into a liberal bastion of education and media, or turn on itself to the GOP in a major way. Either way Americans are screwed until the issues are less about right and left and what is more sound. I really don't see any difference between a conservative Dem and a Republican. Bob Conley, who ran for Senate as a Dem, was far more conservative than Lindsey Graham. Most conservatives voted Lindsey because of the "R" next to his name.

Good point. He did make that throw and I forgot about that.

Probably the leaving of their Holy Land, retraction of American aggression, and a ham and cheese sandwich with imitation ham as it is against his laws as a Muslim.

Yeah, Moulds sucked in 2005. Did you ever look at his stats post-JP in 2005? 7 rec for 59 yards 1 TD against Miami, and 7 rec for 63 yards for 1 TD against the Jets. He then has a let down of 4 rec for 36 yards to follow up with 9 rec for 136 yards and 1 TD. Yeah, he was USELESS. LOLOLOLOL If that's useless what do you call Evans for 4 games this year including last game? In 2005 Moulds had 81 receptions in 15 games. JP only passed for over 200 yards once the entire year. McGahee is every bit as good as Lynch in 2005. He ran for 1247 yards in 15 games. Maybe you should be more objective and compare each player objectively. Subjectively I would rather have Lynch over McGahee as he is a MUCH better team player, but talent wise I don't see a real difference. Objectively I would rather than Evans/Moulds over Reed/Evans. Reed isn't a fraction to what Moulds was in 2005. Moulds made acrobatic catches in the NO game in 2005 with passes way over his head and all over the place, for the few receptions he had and JP looked like Dr. Frankenstein. Maybe Moulds was useless in 05' because he was willing to say JP sucked publicly, but his play on the field was just fine.

The Raiders and the Jags this year, and Washington last year. Both times he was down, playing ok (not bad or good) and just brought himself and his team to a different level to win. JP would never have passed deep down the middle in the last moment of the game, nor would many QBs. He not only threw it, but threw a strike in crunch time. He has shown toughness when the game was reachable and tried reaching for it and has had flashes of, (gulp) greatness, for a QB so young. The confidence can be there, and so is the mental game. What's he's lacking are those exact same features what made him good, as well as the timing routes to pass before the WR is there and more confidence in this routes and reads to his WRs. If you haven't seen Trent above average in the mental game you haven't seen the same thing as many, including the experts, see in him. Rich Gannon, after watching him in the Jets game, said that his rookie performance was one of the best he's ever seen. A rookie who goes out and plays like he did deserves more recognition than "he sucks the last 4 games."

A few things I want to say about Edwards, and first of all he's not nearly as bad as some people clamoring for JP. JP was never a good QB, and when he showed flashes of greatness they were always deep balls. He was never a consistent QB that could do much in this league. When he leaves next year you will see what I mean. Unto Edwards: -He's a scared QB, even when he's playing well, and I never saw it until recently. He either doesn't trust himself or his receivers. I remember watching Manning practice with Harrison and Manning would consistently throw the ball before Harrison was even cutting there. Good QBs and good WRs do that consistently. Trent only throws when there is separation in the same direction of the route that he can guage and then throws. -Either the staff or himself doesn't like the deep ball and should try at least 3 times a game. Sorry, he's got to go over 20+ yards in the air a few times to Evans or Parrish and either Edwards or the staff has to call for it if nothing else but to loosen up his conservative approach to the game. -His INTs are disturbing considering he's a conservative QB. The one INT in particular with the Browns was based solely on the fact Edwards throws short passes and he was waiting in front of the receiver just expecting it. I think if can work on those deeper passes it would stop the CBs from doing that. -On the bring side he has the tools and the mental game to regroup and turn it around. Let's hope that our brilliant coaching staff can help him. He has played pretty well in 3 or 4 games this year when we weren't running the ball and carried the offense.

Actually both are about money. Conservatives who don't want illegals are not because they work and want to work, but because of the tax grab they get when they work low-paying jobs, export US dollars out of the economy, receive free medical care, etc. and people don't like being STOLEN from. If Canadians did the same thing many people, including myself, would be equally outraged, especially with gigantic state and federal deficits. I did want to edit and say that us attacking Taiwan is also about money and exports. I'm not justifying us defending them either, and would be opposed to it. And for you to say that gringo is affectionate, and that wet-back is not is a lie. You know full well that is how it's used today. Your pseudo-outrage and calls for hypocrisy are laughable. I've called my friends mojados and they laugh, and they call me a WOP or guinea. Your grandfather and my grandfather's generation looked at it different and for you to pull out the outrage cards shows your ignorance of common language and that we aren't that generation. The word "Gringo" is an "offensive slang" if you look up it's history. That's why I hate the rampant "racist" card BS that people pull when it suits their needs.

I never said they are currently working there Sherlock. Technically you are lying if you think they won't be working in the White House come game time. Just because he's elect doesn't mean he can't prep a staff to work there and one can't make arguments based on Emmanuel, or anyone else that's he's hiring to work in "his White House". Do you realize every time you point out my name on some illogical point you make yourself look more like someone who is "stupid"? How are you doing with that rebuttal on Article 8 Constitutional Law after saying there wasn't a law and then pretend I'm at fault?

You have a short memory. He could be and was worse in at least 2 of the 4 games.

JP had Evans, Moulds, and Campbell. Trent has Evans, Reed/Hardy, and Royal. Evans in 2005 was ok, better than Reed/Hardy, and Moulds is better than Evans or Reed/Hardy/Johnson, and Campbell is better than Royal.

The same Giants that saw flashes in Eli here and there being a good QB? We've seen more flashes of a good QB in Trent than the Giants in Eli and JP. If you can't see that you are blind.

"I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House." Can you remember now?

Too bad he doesn't do anything to help change the game either.

Barber is better than Lynch. You never see Barber side-step off tackle to try to create extra yards, he always goes forward.

So you consider the Cardinals to be dominating? When you throw for 250 yards in a half and only score 13 points at the time that's my point. If a team was balanced and the QB threw 250 yards it would be more like 25 points. That's domination in a half, not 13 points. Actually your point was that the Pats running game was "awful" and yet dominated. After I exposed that fallacy you are twisting the argument on my proofs. Why don't you admit that Pats running game wasn't awful. You are trying to twist the argument and then claim my proofs are off-topic is a bit silly. I responded to your point, so if I can't stick to one point, let's stick there then ok? I also never implied anything from your post, but simply gave my own reasoning what is needed for any type of success. I never said the Bills need to have a dominant running attack, but at the very least they should average 100 yards a game rushing and take more pressure off of the QB. Going back to your point: is over 1800 yards and 17 TDs awful? If not why do you cite that as a source to discredit me? What do you consider an awful running game if that's awful? Would 1800 yards+ rushing with 17 TDs be a boost to this team in a major way? I'm dying to know so I can stay on track. Edit: after reviewing the ridiculous logic some of you think I'm asking for a dominant running game that is fantastic and blows everyone up. All I'm asking for is the same awful running game of the Patriots* 2007, or the terrible 1762 rushing yards of the 2006 Colts. Thanks for making my points.

Awful as in 10 games with over 100 yards rushing awful? 1849 yards rushing with 17 TDs is awful? Averaging over 100 yards a game with over 1 TD a game is not awful. Brady did dominate and had 2 of the best WRs in their positions with Moss out wide, and the best 3 WR in Welker. Brady isn't too bad himself. If we have the best outside WR and the best #3 receiver in the game you might have a point. You might also need some refs who don't call holding either as the Patriots routinely did without penalties. Tell me how the Pats* did in the Superbowl without a running game. Tell me how Kelly did without using Thurman in the SB against the Giants. The 07 Pats* is not a team you say, "Oh yeah, all we need now is Randy, Wes, and Brady and we're set." Their defense was pretty good last year too. RESULTS dictate you need more than a passing game to win in this league, and the odds of getting Trent to become Brady or Warner, Evans to become Moss, and Parrish or Reed to become Welker is not going to happen.

That was my point? Can you not read? I never said 300 yards and 3 TDs is wrong, nor did I say it wasn't a win, but point was a guy who threw for 250 yards in the first half, at the time I wrote it, only scored 13 points. Sorry, but as impressive as Warner is he isn't going to win the SB without a running game. Edwards, with less talent himself and less talent on the team, cannot expect to do more without a running game. That was my point.

Well from all the homers who think Whitner is that great, people forget what a great safety looks like who gets drafted further down the board than Whitner. Polamalu is what you expect from that position in the draft as far as production. In other news, I'm getting getting pretty close to never watching the NFL after this year. Romo's reversed fumbles or non-calls, the INT they overturned on Polamalu in the AFC Championship game when they wanted a Manning year, the consistent Cheatriot non-calls for holding on the offensive lines with ticky-tack calls against opposing teams, the Ravens vs. Cheatriots where they let the 4th and 1 play go until the Pats get stuffed and then say a time-out was called, and every week some dumb-ass call is just getting to be too much. I enjoyed the UFC more at this point. It's not enough that I'm a Bills fan and get cheated on Moss's push-offs, Music City, and bad Super Bowls, but the league is letting this become the WWE.

Parcells said he was the best coach he ever met. That's enough for me. His teams came to play and he's a winner. I wanted him, and I was on record for wanting him on another Bills board. The guy knows the game.

With 10 seconds remaining before the half Warner has throw for 251 yards, 84.7% completion percentage, and the score is only 13-7 with the Cards only getting 3 FGs for all the running up the field. No consistency at all. D's are falling back into coverage with the Cards and they still can't run the ball. Sound similar? Trent isn't Warner, but Trent is good. For a 2nd year guy I'm shocked we are 5-4. The Cards are a spitting image of our team with better WRs and a better QB.

Dean and Edward's Arm, If you want proof of Dean's hero worship re-read his views with me on Whitner. I have never seen anyone find a player to be as good or polished without accomplishing much in the way of changing game on this board as Dean. By the way, Losman sucks. Nice guy though, wish things worked out.