StupidNation

Brady had a decent run game, certainly not top tier, but much better yardage than we have Brees? Have you seen the Saints record the last 2 years? He is fantastic, but without a run game they are below .500.

Lynch got 9 carries for 26 yards in the first half. Stop lying to yourself and watch the game. He isn't that good. As far as comparing Thurman to Davis is also a lie. Thurman averaged over 4.5 ypc in his prime, so to compare careers is ridiculous, not to mention Thurman was a better receiver. Jackson should be starting until it's 100% the line's fault. Until then smashing yourself over the head with the same results is the fault of bad coaching.

yes he has done better

The NFL is obviously pro Patriots. This game is no different. We still couldn't run the ball and ergo we can't win. Watch the Saints for example, they are just like us with better WRs, better QB, but worse defense. Brees is on track to break Marino's passing record, and they aren't good either, although fun to watch.

Yes, but the 06' draft has starters on this team. I mean they start or they start for us, or... whatever.... Anyone really think Donte was missing today? Did you see the difference to the team? Come on now Dean, admit it, Whitner is no different with or without him to this team.

You are a conservative who gets blasted on the PPP forums, and a loyal Bills fan. I feel your pain brother.

You missed a coaching staff that fails to let the better RB play more.

With the exception of 4 runs Lynch has played sub-par. This is probably his 7th game where he averaged under 3 ypc in the first half. He just lacks the vision to be a great back, and he looks to run-off defenders instead of trying to get yardage. Jackson should get the bulk and Lynch should back him. Can Jackson run 25 times? Don't know, neither does anyone until it happens.

Either you don't watch the games or you do but you don't remember him playing. I've seen him in there. He hasn't done anything, but he's been in there. He does suck though, then again he's a rookie.

So moderate leanings are a criteria of truth? So if A is right, B is moderately wrong, and C is wrong I have to choose B? That's brilliant! What's your next lesson? I knew you weren't ready or prepared to make a debate, you aren't even educated in logic and want to make logical arguments? Feel offended? Here's a suggestion, learn before you teach.

The next person who points to 20 carries should be automatically disbarred from posting. Have you been watching the same game as me? Lynch is averaging less than 3 ypc in the first half of most every game we played. How can you average or get to 20 carries when you aren't allowing yourself to get 1st downs? Do you advocate we run 7 straight series running until we get to 20 carries? No one believes that.

Where were the cries for regulation on Fannie in 2004 by the Dems when it benefitted their constituency? Where is the analysis that regulation and subsidizing mortgages through gov't sponsorship of Fannie and Freddie, regulating the interest rate through central planning has caused the problem? De-regulation is bad when it hurts their constituency so they regulate subsidies, and when they regulate it and subsidize it all of a sudden it's de-regulation's fault, and how that makes sense to anyone I have no idea. Will there be bubbles in capitalism? Always, but they are quickly correctable with some regulation. Whatever you subsidize you get more of those same problems. Edit: this is not a Dem bashing post, the Repubs pushed the same backing to their lobbyists so I hold them, generally speaking, just as guilty

Those are all excellent thoughts. Same as what I believe.

Steely, you are an idiot, and yes I've said it many times. You are a demagogue of the left, that's why I call you out. You don't see me do that to KTFBD because he argues rationally, and when he pokes fun or uses biting sarcasm it's for effect. Your arguments boil down to this, and it's really a simple syllogism, namely that if it doesn't fit Steely's ideas you must be jerk because the leftards told me so, and therefore I use ridicule and sarcasm to make my point, now when I do it back to you your only retort is to find quotes by me which actually prove what I'm saying. That's why you are a moron. You are a prime example of what's wrong with this country. G.K Chesterton once said, "If you want to see why democracy can't work talk to someone for 5 minutes." You're proof because you don't think through what you say. Do you want to debate me publicly on an issue? I won't use one name or ridicule but you can as long as you stay true to a formal debate of using syllogistic proofs to base your assertions based on principles of thought. Bring a book on logic, and not symbolic logic but classical dialectics and epistemology. You'll learn fast that you don't have an idea what you are talking about, and who knows you might be an educated person for your betterment. You bring a topic you think I would have a problem with and we'll debate. Fair enough?

When the RBs can't average over 3 yards per carry in the 1st half it makes it hard for them to get 20+ carries.

It's not the cost of the student, it's the increase to immediate revenue which is usually converted into bigger lined pockets. The same argument is used with mortgages with every $1,000 costs $7/mo, but the reality is inflation is inflation.

The greatest problem I have is this board is not conducive to rational thought. Propose something rationally on a Bills board and yes I expect to be lashed out by people in the secular world who think that I'm an anachronism. Frankly, I don't give a sh*t what any of you think unless you want to debate rationally. Now if you want to respond with ridicule by virtue of embarrassment rather than debate me then fine, you win your little game of acting like an idiot. Ergo, my name on this board. I have seen a few cogent thoughts by a few, and yes, those on the other side who make educated statements. If mentioning the natural law, common good, ethics, responsibility in parenting, and freedom cause such mental epilepsy in those who find me to be repulsive I think it's more indicative of your mentality than my statements. Somehow arguing on demagoguery rather than reason is now plausible. I'm not indicting everyone who disagrees, but does so without understanding how a syllogism can be justified.

For someone who never thinks through someone else's position it's hard to respond to your idiocy but ok... If my child is compelled to write a paper on a book that I consider as a parent, and yes I know parenting by parents is not what the left wants, immoral I want the right to restrict such a paper to my child, and by my choice change schools that I agree with the schooling, or homeschool. Big Brother hates homeschooling because they can't destroy children so they have made it illegal in Cali. That's open-mindedness and freedom! The left is all into freedom and it's those wackos on the right. The parent, not the state, is the primary educator of morals, duties to society and education. How that parent wants to do that is up to them as long as it does not violate the natural law or good order to society. If the government decides to restrict the freedoms of adults to conscription then a question of whether or not the common good is so threatened that it is deemed indispensable for them to comply as there must be clear and grave circumstances to even warrant such an action. My point on religious groups is exactly what you said, but you don't understand your own position to consequence. I already have to "tolerate" the religion of secularity, which is exactly what would be forced by these mandated work periods (tolerate the acts of homos, anti-religious, but not Christianity as that's Church/State issues), why not give me the freedom, or my child the freedom to have the same choice as long as it does not hurt natural law or the common good based on reason and ethics? If you are going to compel my child to act, and in the way and mind-set you want, how is that a just or good law if it violates my right to raise my child that does not violate natural law or the common good? It might be hard for your mind to understand, but read it again and say "Goose-fraba" over and over again while breathing.

Yah, sound government, sound currency, following the Constitution, liberty, and non-interventionist foreign policy are horrible ideas in an economy about to hit the end of the road. What we need is more Krugman ideas for New Deals (the New Deal that is currently bankrupting us), more totalitarianism, and blame de-regulation when it was regulation that caused the problem. If Ron Paul is a loon in your eyes, it's more of a reflection of yourself than him. Lobbyists hate him, tax-payers love him. The worst thing about him is he speaks the truth. I'm sure you have done as much to help others as he has, but go in your little computer world and complain about him, he is fighting for your liberties everyday. Truth is treason in the world of deception. That's why he is a loon to you.

What you believe and what is then mandated will be 2 different things. Now to answer your husband's background is fairly elementary in regards to your analogy: 1st His school's mandate was voluntary and contractual 2nd (Change USA Prez) is mandatory by compulsion. I would never analogously link a school your husband contracted with and your husband retained full volition with state compulsion.

A few things: -To force gov't compulsion of work is a destruction of freedom -The type of work you are to do that is "mandatory" I'm sure will not include religious organizations (as that's taboo in lib land) -Destroys the idea of parenting by parents and perpetuates motherment by decreasing personal responsibility for both the parents and the children in proper development Should I go on or do you really not see the problem with what he said.

Also, the 16 of 19 civilizations is from a quote from my professor 10 years ago. For you and others, although you are civilized, to hurl that type of thesis from memory, or as some online article, (something I leaned 10 years ago) is incredulous as well. I hope you understand.

No, I gave a form of proof. Now, let's perform some basic logic on you and see if you pass, ok? Does the research from 1934 invalidate his historical thesis because it is over 10 years old in your book? Do statements of historical value become less valuable as time moves forward? If something is correct 1,000 years ago, is it correct today? Ergo, your statement is silly and illogical. The quote I gave was a combination of quotes. Where's your proof he's wrong? I'll take a quote from a professor in 1933.

That's fine but I will state that Unwin's thesis is based on some pretty condemning evidence.

I said public acceptation of homosexuality. Now that I have quoted a professor who researched 86 cultures and that isn't good enough for you do you expect me to waste my time with you? I've been debating this garbage for years, and what I've learned is people don't like facts in these predicaments. You ask me for proof, I provide some, you ask me for more in the hopes you can drive a wedge in one fraction of my statement hoping to disprove one aspect in the hopes you are disproving everything. But I will answer your question. There were homosexual actions in those societies, but it was never widely accepted. After it was there is no proof of cultural vitality as lust is blinding. For references check this message board or most spam you receive.