mike1011

GG you might complain about the DoD being $2,000, but last time I checked if a country assaults us they defend us. The $11 I pay to illegal aliens doesn't do me anything except more people become lazy and break the law. So pay up liberals. If it's no big deal you pay us back, or is it easier to be Robin Hood for anti-American illegals when there is no face to the tragedy. If it was up to conservative Americans we would happily pay $2,000 a year for a secure border, no illegals, and eventually the price of the $2,000 would go down because a 9/11 would've never happened.

My friend, don't you understand: THE BLIND HAVE EYES BUT CANNOT SEE! I will not waste my time with such idiots. I get paid a lot just to pay Luis & Molina Rodriguez lifestyle as they break into our borders. I love the bumper sticker: WORK HARDER MILLIONS ON WELFARE ON COUNTING ON YOU

RBs are a dime a dozen. What is needed (and your insights by and large I agree with) is 2 solid guards (unless we re-sign Gandy), and depth/starter at RT. Any RB pretty much gets yards with a good O-line. Maybe the O-line is adequate and our QB is making the O-line worse than it is? No matter what the QB situation needs the most emphasis. With no real sense of time in the NFL in terms of time in the pocket we are screwed with JP right now. I have lost my faith in him for no other reason than his mental ability on the field. The guy has all world talent in his arm and feet, but no mental awareness of the game, which is far more important than the greatest tools in the world (e.g. Brees vs. Leaf)

Those rankings are fairly accurate, sadly.

I'm not an apologist of the GOP by the way, but I'm certainly against the liberal propaganda to destroy the nation from within.

Just because it doesn't say "as bad as", or "not as costly as" doesn't mean it's not bad. Having a multi-billion dollar problem is a problem. Just because it's not as bad as Iraq, or as "bad as previously believed" doesn't mean it's not bad. You don't judge virtue by vice. You still won't answer the question whether or not the GOP talking point (which was your point) is valid. Talk past me all you want, you have a huge problem. If you want to pretend that even $1.1 billion is not a problem you foot the bill. The overall problem is enormous. When you consider what you've done, which is talk a small portion of a total bill of a demographic and use that as your sticking point against the GOP, you are intellectually dishonest. Look at YOUR title, look at how you phrased it and own up you tried to minimize the damage of illegal aliens. Before you pretend you didn't, remember the Tooth Fairy is real and is a tool of the GOP to alienate voters.

Non-partisan doesn't mean they are for immigration, it means they are not Republican or Democrat. Because they hold a common position doesn't mean they belong to a party. Now what I posted is to show the overall costs. You stated, in a biased, limited demographic, that it only costs $11 per family for illegals. If you wanted to claim (which you might out of looking like a liberal tool) that it was just for medical expenses, it's funny how I stated the true cost for the entire demographic was roughly double, a claim which proved accurate which I was chastised for. You are guys are idiots, complete idiots. Common sense prevails here. They are eating up jobs, tax money, security issues, and still all you complain about is how much it costs tax payers for families between 18-64 when those #s are not accurate based upon 45 million families roughly. Bottom line is they are destroying the country and you don't want to face it because it makes you look stupid. Don't worry, you do that just fine.

A cursory view of illegal immigration provides the following information: In 2002 illegals cost us $26 billion, and they paid $16 billion in taxes leaving us with a $10,000,000,000 deficit. That's 10 billion boys. Care to eat some crow? This comes from the Center for Immigration, a non-partisan committee. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html I know I was guessing double the figure or $1.1 billion, and one jacka$$ said I was making those #s out of thin air and he was right, because it was 10 times the $1.1 billion he quoted on health-care alone for a specific demographic. That's $10,000,000,000 Here's a news story to corroborate the facts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Aug25.html Illegal immigrants kill, rape and destroy lives at a much higher rate than legal citizens. That's the non-economic side of it. That's the human side, and it has faces of families in agony over the death of a loved one. How about the cost of identity theft? Countless hours and millions of dollars to restore your own identity: http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/03/hidden_cost_of_.html How about the cost of all the cars they steal? How about all our US dollars going to drug lords? That's free of course... http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty2.htm You were also right, I guessed too low. There are 300,000 births a year by illegal immigrants who have "US citizen" children, called "anchor children". Their cost is in the billions, but are not fitted with the equation as they are now citizens and not illegals. This is just pertaining to San Diego: -Nearly 80 percent of gang-related crimes in San Diego are illegal immigrants. They only attack other gang members right... -In San Diego alone protests supporting and opposing illegal immigration cost the Sheriff's Department $489,000 in 2005. According to a study in 1996 of the costs of illegal immigration by Rice Univ. economist, Dr. Donald Huddle, illegal aliens were displacing roughly 730,000 American workers every year, at a cost of about $4.3 billion a year, and the supply of cheap labor depresses the wages and working conditions of the working poor. Are we to believe all the facts as to the cost of these people? Or just your idiotic myopic understanding of what is happening?

Hospital closings, prisoners, student costs, etc. are not calculated to the total amount of money that GG is claiming. Taking one sample amongst the hundreds of expenditures is sophomoric. Even if we use the $1.1 billion we have 260 million Americans and the average family is 4.3 people making roughly 45 million families which does not equate to $11. BUT... BUT... WE HAVE A PEER REVIEWED STUDY!!! Look at reality, California is having a crisis partially because they cannot stop the illegals. If you are really not concerned give us a check for $11 each, that's every American family in the world for law breakers. When should I forward to that check?

$11 per family is not smart, it's fuggin stupid. Do the math, unless you are counting all the families of the world.

I give peer-reviewed journals less credence because of their beliefs that pedophilia isn't wrong if the child consents, and other great findings of the idiots running this country into the ground. Go shock yourself and read the American Psychology Association peer reviewed studies and tell me if you agree with them. Then go through each spending bill approved by peer-reviewed studies and tell me how 50% make any sense as far as what should be spent and what is spent.

Nope, I'm right. You just read articles and just predicate it's correct you are the fool. You are a complete idiot if you think otherwise. Look at the words themselves. Let's look at the stats: $1.1 billion for people between ages of 18-64. Why did it conspicuously leave out the people who need money the most and get it the most because they are US citizens? Don't come touting stats with people who are their healthiest who don't need hospitals as much as those other age demographics. A very selective study. Of course we cannot study the words, that would be dangerous. Do you think that maybe most hospitals are full of elderly? And that 99% of nursing homes are over the age of 64? Those are free of course. How about the US citizens at birth who receive free hospital care, with free medicine, etc.. How much is each baby with all that support? $10,000 each? That's fair because that's the US average. $10,000 is nothing for a baby at a hospital WITHOUT medicine. How many babies that are illegal are born here? In the thousands would be a good guess. 20 million illegal immigrants having 10,000 babies is $10,000,000 yearly. How about their food stamps, medicines, sicknesses as a child? Each child in the US costs on average $9,200 per year (http://sheilawraygregoire.com/costofhavingababyp32.php). How we have 20 million illegals in the country. You do the math Einstein. How about the elderly and nursing homes? How about their hospital care? That's free according to your numbers of $11 per household (a stat which is totally incorrect). Don't you feel smart. You are the jackoff who posted $11 per family. We have 260 million Americans, and the average family is 4 people. That's roughly 45 million families. Now what's 45 million families into $1,100,000? It's not $11 you jacka$$. Using your own figures it makes no sense. It doesn't fit in the cost of each child for birthing and child raising, or the elderly who cost $20,000-$30,000 a year in a nursing home, hospital care, medicines, etc.. You are a lemming who can't think further than the liberals can throw you. 20,000,000 illegals... how many do you think are in a nursing home? Is 2,000 a low enough figure for you? One in 10,000 people a low enough figure for you? That's another $40,000,000 conservatively. That's just .1% of the population. How about the cost of guarding the border? These people aren't cheap, they cost more than you will ever realize because you can't think at all. Was 3rd grade that hard for you? I'll tell you what, stop telling people to pay for people breaking the law. Go from house to house and ask what people pay in Social Service taxes, tell them you will reimburse them for the money they pay to illegals before you tell me I should pay for them. Shut your piehole until you do so you hypocrite.

Volek would have been great to have. What gives you any indication that he wouldn't? He only fear with him is that he wanted to be a back-up, which is pathetic.

I wanted RJ more than Flutie for the reasons of age and his incredible physical ability (better than JP's). Once I watched him get hurt over and over again, not have the vision on the field to think fast enough I never defended him. I was a big Losman supporter until I realized his head can't process the info fast enough. He just can't do it. The mental aspects of the game can be worked on to a point, but there is some mental recognition that is just innate. I don't think he can become successful at all. A so-so back-up at best.

With Manning this team would be 7-2. He gets NO run support with Addai and their HORRIBLE O-line when it comes to running the ball. Both of their backs can't run behind their line that has been dismantled because of FA. McGahee would look horrible with that line. Our defense is every bit as good/bad as their's. The difference is Manning would stop the 9 people in the box, burn blitzes, and keep their defense honest. Watch Brady behind his shoddy line. He just thinks fast and throws the ball. Then when he stands behind the line having enough time to eat a sandwich it's because the D respects him enough to give him the time. Blitz JP over and over again and he will freeze. Apply extra pressure and he's cooked. QBs do make that much of a difference. I don't expect JP to be Manning or Brady, I'll be happy with Pennington type performances.

Thank God it's ONLY $1,100,000,000 for people between those ages. How about those kids who are now US citizens who get food stamps, etc?? If you count all the illegals the # probably doubles. Now that's roughly $2,000,000,000. If you count all the tax payers in the country that actually pay taxes it's probably close to 80 million people making each tax payer pay $250 a year on people BREAKING THE LAW. I would feel better if it went to disabled vets, not to people who are soaking our money. Next time you think $2,000,000,000 is nothing here's a suggestion: pay for it yourself!!! Because people like myself know it's a sham and a fraud you pay for it you bleeding heart buffoon.

I don't want to give too much of a hackneyed response, but I was a teacher, I dealt with teachers and the argument always runs that if more more money was allocated for education things would improve. I flat out disagree. If more money was spent wisely than less money is needed overall. We don't need new computers in every school. Schools would be better off without computers until 11th and 12th grade. If there are computers for earlier years in school it's only to become proficient in how to use them and basic programming, but never for any other reason. Googling words and knowledge is not the best way to learn initially. It could be introduced, but let kids learn how to look things up, be inventive and intuitive, and then let them learn how to use their intuition on a computer. Why in the world are their calculators now in every classroom? Kids can't multiply to save their lives. Computers with spell checkers ruin a child's opportunity truly learn how to spell and use grammar, not to mention work on penmanship. Do you want to fix the schools? Abolish the teacher's unions, stop tenure, and make a teacher's job like everyone else's: IF YOU DON'T PERFORM YOU DON'T WORK. Tenure is a made up term by the education system to give themselves job security with no accountability. If teachers were actually teaching kids instead of giving anecdotal stories, telling them to write on their feelings, giving them tools to learn rather than learn the material without ways to actually learn without a machine, it's time to change the entire system. Last time I checked Asia has 5% of our resources per child and a vastly superior system. Teachers teach over there because they have to. Slap tenure and a union backing on a teacher and they will only work to enrich their position and stature.

Which is a welcome re-addition back to our society. When people are inefficient (voluntarily) they deserve to be treated different for their laziness.

Like the Raiders?

Brunell was playing better than Losman this year.

It's certainly aiding wouldn't you say? I'm more upset with Bush's proposal to increase Social Service spending to astronomical levels.

Hey, don't be so offensive, Brees showed more than Losman did You are correct in saying that reasonable people can be against starting an inept QB just to see if all the fault is placed on Losman incorrectly. Everytime Gandy got torched at LT I never saw the bandwagons for "Losman should throw quicker", "Our left LG sucks", etc.. Change the position to the QB for the Bills and all of a sudden all rationale is lost.

Exactly! The Browns, Cardinals, Raiders, Bucs, Texans all have indisputably worse lines that ours. Lines just as good/bad as ours are teams like New Orleans (everyone thought they were horrible before Brees and no one expected them to win because of the O-line even with Brees and Bush), Washington, Miami, Green Bay, Tenessee, and San Fran. Our line is average in the FA era. Get over it. Indy's line isn't that great anymore, neither is KC. San Diego started 2 late rounders last year and did well. No one has an early 90's Cowboys O-line anymore. No one ever will.

Seneca Wallace looked great and I saw him almost get killed a few times. He avoids the sacks. Seneca Wallace has started a few games his entire career, yet he has more game presence than JP. When Seneca Wallace looks better than JP I have to wonder why we are just waiting for JP to become mentally ready to play in a game. Tools - YES! Head -NO

No one believes that after reading everything. All people are saying is that a 3rd year pro should be better prepared than a rookie. People ONLY look at Lienart because JP is so bad. We lose nothing by trying Nall at this point. Unless Nall averages 2 fumbles a game and 2 Ints for 3 games than what did we really risk? 3 games of a guy who might manage a game better.