LA Grant

Bledsoe was all hype and sacks. If Tyrod Taylor had receivers like Eric Moulds & Peerless Price in his time in Buffalo, this wouldn't even be a conversation.

Haha yes, hilarious! As we all know, the only morality is in the free market. Only corporations like gun manufacturers, and their lobbying groups, can be trusted to have our best interests — so what if they happen to make 'a killing' in the process, right? Meanwhile, yourself & Rhino (who liked your post) insist that somehow the Parkland kids are making a buck off of this (you can't figure out how, exactly, but somehow) in their quest to strip you of your God-given right. This, as you've said before, will obviously lead directly to WHITE GENOCIIIIIIIIIDE. Just like all of the white genocides in Australia and throughout the many countries in Europe with similar gun laws. All of those genocides that happened right after they passed gun laws. Oh wait. I forgot, that was just one of your many disturbed fantasies. That's okay. I remember your reasoning from the other gun thread. You're as passionate for the NRA as you are for NAMBLA.

Sorry to hear this, Tom. Your life is so hard!

You asked a question? I confess, I was paying you no attention. Idiot.

You'd prefer an irresponsible government? ? Boomers should have followed the democratic socialism principles that saved the country with the New Deal instead of chipping away it over time for vainly ephemeral returns.

I don't know that I'm quite that unique, but thank you anyway for once again refusing to answer any questions. I'm glad you're fascinated, though. Say, if you're interested in tragic results & fascinating possibilities, you may also like the gun reform movement in the USA. It's all over the news.

I do enjoy how the concept of "fairness" is "otherworldly" to you. Also, I don't assume you're upset or any other emotional state. The Santa bit was clearly tongue-in-cheek to your impatience and sourpuss nature. I don't care what emotions you are or aren't having, for God's sake. I have to ask, and I know you won't answer, you never do but — why is everything always about DC Tom's feelings?? Speaking of Jesus, what do you think he looked like? What do you think his life was like? I will observe that this will also not be answered, nor will the now countless other questions I've posed directly to you in multiple previous engagements. You'll just sneak away and snipe when you think you have something, then sneak away again when it's a bust, because you want to feel superior but you don't want to do anything to deserve it. There. We made it about your feelings. Whenever we're done, perhaps we could consider... other people???? Or is that another otherworldly concept to you, Tom? http://time.com/longform/never-again-movement/ https://nyti.ms/2Ge6WUd

Hi Rhino. So which is it? Am I on ignore or are you the reader of all texts everywhere? You, the self-described open-minded liberal of the board (a joke), are you a snowflake in a bubble or do you have something to say? Speaking of the Globalists, how's your Deep State theory looking these days? It's all right on track, yeah? Trump and Sessions have 'em right where they want 'em? Nunes for medal of honor?

lol, I'm not bringing this up out of nowhere. This is the commentary surrounding the conspiracy theory when you scratch for "okay then who is the 'they' controlling this and profiting from gun law debate, and why isn't the NRA ever mentioned like this by you?" Somehow, in their fuzzy logic, it always comes back to "Globalists" when it doesn't come to "Hillary" "Obama" "The Deep State" "lizard people." Now that I think of it, I may be confusing Tasker with Rhino. I thought Tasker was the one going on about Globalists in the gun thread or one of the Russian threads, but that sounds more like Rhino. But no wait, Tasker went to white genocide & heritage. It's not a leap to assume he is someone who believes it. He's saying he can't be anti-Semitic because he is pro-Israel but they are not mutually exclusive beliefs; you can be both. A number of other people are and they are dumb and racist; harmful opinions deserve mockery. "Deplorable" was on the money actually. I remember now: Tasker was the passionate pedophile preservist and Rhino was the one who is skeptical of all media except the Federalist. Bottom line: listen to the damn kids. As for your 'main event'... What's my opinion on the bombing of Dresden? It was a tragedy. Thanks for asking... if you're expecting an essay, you'll have to give first, maybe an alien concept to you. At least ask better gotcha's if you have some worthwhile rabbit hole. I'm going to give you 3 paragraphs on the nuance of a well-trod moral quandary philosophically as well as legally, for your response to be some weak hit attempt like "LA Rant"? Similar to Tasker's open-ended prompt on white genocide, you're going to have to pony up first. What's your opinion on the attack in Benghazi? Aw buddy!!! Poor sweet Tom, dear old Thomas of the Dick Collectors... don't despair, Santa is still coming. Have some faith. If your heart is feeling doubtful, Thomas, next year you could try a little harder to be a good boy. We've been through this. You say "right to bear arms," I say "well regulated militia." You say "shall not be infringed," I say define an "arm." 2A is a dead-end. There is no coherent argument, using that or anything else, to justly claim US gun laws are not in need of reform.

This is correct. So unless March for Our Lives is profiting from gun sales, which seems unlikely, not sure how we're supposed to conclude that they're doing this for financial gain. Whereas the NRA is abundantly selling their content, and the products they represent, as though firearms are a God-given right based on a willful misrepresentation of the rules that govern society. The 2A argument doesn't hold any water, as Tasker has demonstrated time & again by admitting to a fantasy version of history and/or an absolutist defense of pedophile rights with 1A. Their message is: Firearms are yer God-given right, but act now — they're coming to take them away! It's great marketing, I'll give them that.

As always, your reading comprehension is abysmal, and/or you're willfully misrepresenting. You're as lazy as your schtick is tired. I'm speaking Tasker's language there, for his benefit. I'm insisting he plainly makes his case that the kids are pawns for a Globalist conspiracy to magically profit off of gun reform. I'm simultaneously signaling to him that the codewords he's using/has used/will use are racist, we all know what you mean by "Globalist" just like we know the difference between "high motor" & "freak athlete," or "terrorist" & "mentally disturbed individual." Racist ideology is sneaky & persistent, similar to the behavior of cockroaches, but still easily identifiable.

Sure, part of it is that. There's also — like the thread title — the generational tendency to assume the kids are morons. Baby Boomers should have been more demanding for a responsible government. They should have been more financially responsible. They should have insisted that the inherited prosperity continue to be used for social programs that provided long-term benefits, like those in the New Deal, instead of focusing vainly on "getting theirs." Baby Boomers easily could have avoided being suckered into voting in a movie star president & a reality star president. They didn't. They are a generation who will be defined by laziness & passing the buck.

The group most responsible for overly-sensitive, selfish behavior is Baby Boomers, by far. Here's a generation that was born into the greatest prosperity the world has ever known, and squandered it in the most epic way since the fall of Rome. They are determined to lurch to their graves in the lazy comfort they've been accustomed to, regardless of all evidence that their decisions have put future generations into massive debt. Baby Boomers sold us out to corporations, who are more powerful than ever. They fight against social welfare programs because they think it might impact their cozy nest. In these & many more ways, Baby Boomers have contributed the most to America's current state of fragility & hostility. As a "Xennial" — between Gen X & Millennial — it is incredibly, incredibly encouraging to see the braveness of young people in the wake of Parkland. What they're doing takes courage, conviction, and faith. In contrast, Baby Boomers talk a big game about those qualities, but they have never actually demonstrated them. It is disappointing how predictable society reacts to bravery when it happens in real time — anytime one speaks out against injustice, which means speaking against "the status quo," the messenger is attacked & torn down as much as possible. But this? This takes real guts, to stand your ground, knowing they'll be coming after you. If our society has any chance to fix our deep problems & repair the broken trust, it will be by following this example instead of tearing it down. If you've ever given public speeches before, you know it ain't easy to do sh*t like that. That is not the kind of thing a group of advisors would ever recommend. That is real. Growing up in North Tonawanda, I remember my gran'ma as a ballsy & fiery woman who suffered no fools. She'd be proud to see it in the incorruptible Emma Gonzalez going straight at Dana Loesch, the failed Hollywood actress who sold out to become an NRA mouthpiece. Granny loved to say "speak the truth and shame the devil." It was an aphorism she lived by, and one worth emulating.

Tasker. This is not hard. We have these answers, for one thing. Well, "we" being the "literate public." It's very clear how it was organized, mobilized. The permits, logistics, all of it. There isn't as much secrecy here as you'd like to pretend. Here's a fun exercise for you, Tasker: —How does March for our Lives & the secret Globalist (re: Jewish) cabal profit from gun laws? How does this business operate? Be specific. —How do the NRA & gun manufacturers profit from gun laws? How does this business operate? Be specific. —Who stands to lose money from restricted gun laws? Who stands to make money from restricted gun laws, and how?

I'd call you useless, except you do provide some value here — you'll say the evil sh*t that others here agree with but know not to say so directly. See, this is what a "crisis actor" who is "exploiting tragedy" for "political and financial gain" actually looks like. It's Tomi Lahren, it's Dana Loesch. You don't hate it because it's (a) giving you the message you want; (b) it's a calendar girl model. The Republican establishment, including the NRA, know how easy it is to fool you. Can't wait for her next selfie to lead to the messiest, bloodiest "accidental discharge" her vagina has ever seen.

It was incredibly obvious where the money went watching March for Our Lives. The teens have been pretty damn transparent about it all if you'd just listen. Maybe you could instead consider, idk, listening to the victims? Your silly fantasy is that Soros/Globalists (which, be real, is the conservative dog-whistle for "Jews") are somehow pulling the strings to profit off of this. It doesn't make sense, but that hasn't stopped you before. If you're concerned about money in politics, try looking into the NRA instead of buying their BS.

If that is your aim, then please consider representing "both sides." The answers posited in your spooky "who's really behind the teens" article have answers. From the teens themselves. Post that. Consider it. http://time.com/longform/never-again-movement/ Then, you can feel free to speculate how the 17-year-old trauma victims kinda talk funny & hey why is this 'David Hogg' or 'Emma Gonzalez' anyway? Who's really writing for them? Who's producing? Did they orchestrate the shooting just to make themselves famous? Why is this Young Sheldon trying to bazinga my guns? And why aren't they on the WB studio lot tour?

Do you post anything besides copy & pasted conspiracy theory garbage? Did you ever pass any kind of CAPTCHA test before joining this board? Can anyone be sure B-Man is not some Cambridge Russian bot? This is some lazy soft bullsh*t. READ – http://time.com/longform/never-again-movement/ This finally made me realize who your writing style reminds me of. The arch laziness, the foggy viewpoint, the smug pomposity... it's been there the whole time in your avatar, hiding in plain sight. You're the Tim Graham of politics.

I think that happens if NYG trade down, probably with BUF... but if NYG stays at 2, why wouldn't they take Barkley?

Agreed. Also, if it goes like this: CLE - Darnold NYG - Barkley NYJ - Allen DEN (via CLE) - they could take Chubb, or more likely, they swap with DEN who want Rosen and still get Chubb <— so DEN - ROSEN CLE (via DEN) - Chubb, or Best Defensive Player, OR again Bills could trade here and get Mayfield IND - If CLE goes Chubb/BDPA, then at 6, IND also makes sense as a potential partner for Mayfield TB - as does TB Rosen or Mayfield are my 2 & 3 choices, so if Beane is evaluating the same way, and they successfully inflated Josh Allen's draft profile to force the Jets to make their move early, there are a number of ways this still works out as hoped. There's also the possibility of CLE or NYG trading out from the top two, I just never thought it would be a likely scenario and still don't. It's not impossible obviously; the Gettelman connection is probably helpful with other trades with NYG but I just don't know if there's any deal possible good enough to convince you to not take either Barkley or Darnold when they are practically gifted to you because 50% of your offense went to IR.

Not saying you're necessarily wrong because who knows but he was being projected to Colts at 3 in a bunch of mocks. If Cleveland gets their QB and can't get Barkley, why not the best defensive player at 4? Or if Chubb isn't best defensive player then who?

Exactly. It's possible that the Allen hype is what made the Jets move up... right? This is good for the Bills, provided they can still get ahead of Denver. Woody Johnson is a hardcore Republican, why would he want to go all in on getting Josh Rosen as his franchise QB? It seems more likely that they think Allen is the next Big Ben, but needs a year or two to sit and watch Bridgewater/McCown.

Everyone seems to be assuming Jets are going for Rosen... what happened to the idea that Josh Allen could be the 1st or 2nd QB off the board? Think about it: of any owner who would be wary of Rosen's "character concerns," wouldn't it be Woody Johnson of all people? If it goes CLE - Darnold NYG - Barkley NYJ - Allen CLE - they could take Chubb, or more likely, they swap with DEN who want Rosen and still get Chubb <— OR this also leaves the possibility that BUF use their plethora of picks to beat DEN's offer to nab Rosen, and CLE decides 12 & 22 & a 1st next year is the better deal. So BUF - Rosen DEN - Mayfield Everyone wins, except the Jets.

Oh. That Barkley. Thread title had me going for a second.

That would work out nicely for Cleveland, but what if the Giants take Barkley? If that happens, then #4 would be worth trading down form, and Bills nab Rosen or Mayfield.