TtownBillsFan
-
Posts
393 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TtownBillsFan
-
-
On 2/27/2018 at 4:58 AM, Nanker said:
Agreed. After a relatively short amount of time that becomes quite apparent. At a certain point people have to recognize that they’re not worth getting into a dialogue with.
The shutdown of the BBMB did us no favors.
Now that's just not fair. Yeah, I'm sure some trolls made their way over, but I'd not have found this site at all, the Bills news and PPP and all. I'm sure ya'll had trolls before the shutdown
I'm glad I found this place!
-
11 hours ago, njbuff said:
GFY moron, seriously.
I give an opinion. I don't think Carter is a right wing hack. I have followed what all these pundits have said, ON BOTH SIDES, and Carter is the only one I have found who verifies her work. This isn't a right wing conspiracy, this is what I see. So again, GFY.
She's one of the few journalists left that knows what the word means. Follow the story, wherever it takes you. But if you're a lefty, you decide what you want the story to be, then follow those 'facts' so that it takes you in the direction you want it to take you.
Journalism is on life support. And it's people like Carter that keeps it somewhat alive.
9 hours ago, LA Grant said:Guys!!!! Did you see the new development???? It turns out Obama's birth certificate was behind all of this!! Hillary used her witch magic to give it sentience. It's all making sense now!!
hahahahahahaha
FORTY NINE pages of you clowns playing pretend in fantasyland
ahahahahahahahahaha
Honest question for you, and I ask you to answer honestly: What would you do if everything that DR has been laying out ends up being correct, and it's proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Clintons are and were proven to be way way corrupt. IF that were to be proven, what would you do? Would you then denounce them, as I would if it's proven that Trump 'conspired' with the Russians to steal the election from her?
-
On 2/25/2018 at 1:32 PM, LA Grant said:
Or you, my friend. As Tasker once said, it takes a village.
How do you not see that you're just looking for any distraction to avoid talking guns? The sheriff/deputy/police incompetence should be clear evidence that adding MORE guards & guns to schools is not the solution. It does not work. You are not hearing from teachers or veterans in support of this madness. Look who you're agreeing with, you are only hearing this idiocy from crazy people like JMC, Trump, Fox, InfoWars, and the NRA. You seem too otherwise rational to be this thick.
I'm giving you my attention for one moment, just one moment, to give me your, I was going to say fix or solution, but I won't even do that, as there isn't one. I'm giving you my attention for a moment for you to tell me how you would make the situation better. I'm listening. Go.
3 minutes ago, TtownBillsFan said:I'm giving you my attention for one moment, just one moment, to give me your, I was going to say fix or solution, but I won't even do that, as there isn't one. I'm giving you my attention for a moment for you to tell me how you would make the situation better. I'm listening. Go.
I don't think there'll be a suggestion, as we'd have already done it if there was an 'easy' fix. There's not. There's the thing lefties jump to always and quickly, which is get rid of x/y/z gun. It won't change a damn thing, but that's the jump-to spot. And for people like me, who are defenders of the constitution, that's a proposal I cannot agree with. It's those very guns that defend his ability to make his "LA Grant" posts on this board. But I bet LA won't agree with that position. Just give me your best, non-gun-grabbing proposal on how to fix things. I bet we can agree on some things that might help, but gun-grabbing isn't going to work.
-
On 2/28/2018 at 9:59 AM, Reed83HOF said:Andrew BrandtVerified account @AndrewBrandt 53s54 seconds agoThe Glennon signing, like the Eagles/Bradford signing a year before, are cautionary tales for teams signing veterans and also considering 1st round QBs. Days of expensive placeholder quarterbacks are numbered.
None of that is incorrect. BUT, they're not going to pony-up for what he'll likely cost on the open market. Not, at least, until we have the QB situation ironed out. At that point, maybe then we'll pay big for a FA WR. But I don't think it happens this year.
-
6 hours ago, kdiggz said:
Sammy will be the hottest WR on the market now that Landry is franchised. Someone will overpay. They would be paying for his potential. He has never lived up to expectations imo
And there's about a .01% chance we'd be the ones overpaying. Why wouldn't anyone think we'd bring him back, when we just got rid of him, when we didn't have to. We got rid of him because the team wanted to.
I'd say 0.0 chance, but I don't want to say never. But is about as close to a never-chance as you'll get. AAAAAND, I wouldn't want him, for what it'll likely cost. Let some other team burn cap space. A good QB can make even mediocre WR's look good.
-
3 hours ago, WideRightRevenge said:
Candidly .. I'm not in for Rosen, Darnold, or Allen .. let the top couple picks have them. I don't want to Mike Ditka the draft for any of those guys.
My vote would be to trade into picks 7 - 10 .. not as steep of a price ... (Tampa has Jameis) ,8 (CHI has Trubisky) .9 (SF has Jimmy G), or 10 Raiders have Carr ... get Baker Mayfield. This trade also assumes Cousins signs with Denver, Browns, or Jets.We give up Pick # 21, Pick #53 for this year and next year's #2 pick.
Otherwise if he's gone Sit tight and hold 21 and 22 .. don't take a QB there ... as history shows pick #22 for a QB is a death spiral. Take the DL and C Price.
Love it. Whatever it takes for Baker, and your price is CHEAP!
Baker is the biggest competitor in this year's draft, at any position. He's a winner. We can never have enough of those!
But, I'm an Okie, and a die-hard Sooners fan, so I'm biased, of course
47 minutes ago, Pete said:I say trade down and stock pile picks this and next year
Bad, BAD idea this year. That's what we did last year for THIS year. Now is our time to strike.
That being said, I'd really like to know where your profile pic comes from. That is quality!
-
3 hours ago, HappyDays said:
There's a better chance of Tom Brady being on the Bills next year than Jarvis Landry
This.
Are you kidding? There are people on our team that would probably route for his injury before success, even on our team. Bad, bad idea.
-
On 2/23/2018 at 8:38 AM, The_Dude said:
I meant reason. You’ll find that the QWERTY keyboard is called so due to the close proximity of the r and the t.
Nope, that’s how I feel. The United States police force is comprised of people who didn’t want to go to college or work hard to master a skill in a real profession like welding/plumbing or something like that.
Columbine — cops didn’t go in. Now this....the armed police officer hid while children were slaughtered. Kinda dents the idea of putting cops in schools with guns to protect children...cops are cowards. There’s nothing to force the issue with them. Veterans wouldn’t have hid. Veterans would have followed the sound of the gun fire and made a stand. I know it to be true because those guys have done it in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and other hot spots throughout the world.
What happened is what we should expect from cops. They value their lives more than the public’s and they won’t risk their lives even for children. That’s what cops are. Pussies.
Dude, you're now just showing yourself to be a jackass. Not all are good, but most are. They do a job that most don't want to, and couldn't do on their best day. Wow, man, I tried to give you benefit of doubt, but that was just a jackhole statement. I'm going to step away from keyboard before I get banned for saying stuff I shouldn't. But, man, you're unworthy. WOW.
-
3 hours ago, OldTimer1960 said:
I agree, that coveted receiver traits are different than success rates on 4th down, but I do think that the point is similar.
I agree that a team should always be monitoring trends and try to be ahead of the change curve. I think that is a lot of what the Eagles did this year, I think next year will be tougher for that strategy.
I think the game ebbs and flows, but big receivers that can catch, and accurate QBs that can get them the ball will never change. I want us to get an accurate QB that isn't afraid to toss the ball up to our WRs, and I want a compliment of NFL-worthy receivers. A tall WR, a strong-man slot, and an X that's a combo of the two. Then sprinkle in a bruiser TE for blocking, and a scat-TE, like Charles Clay. We've got some of the pieces in place. I just hope we fill it all in
-
12 hours ago, Reed83HOF said:Andrew BrandtVerified account @AndrewBrandt 53s54 seconds agoThe Glennon signing, like the Eagles/Bradford signing a year before, are cautionary tales for teams signing veterans and also considering 1st round QBs. Days of expensive placeholder quarterbacks are numbered.
I'd take Bradford too, if we can get him on a reasonable contract. He's bound to have an injury-free year at some point. Then again, as I said in the Baker thread, I'm a Sooners homer, so yeah, I'd be happy with either
-
15 minutes ago, offyourocker said:
That is what I want in a QB. A guy that wants to win so badly. Accurate. I think his size will be a factor at times but not enough to impeed his success
I hope his lack of stature drops him to a point where we can get him without trading away our draft for him. But if we have to drop our two firsts and a bit more, I really really think he's worth it. We'll rue the draft day we don't make a move for him; I really believe that.
-
59 minutes ago, offyourocker said:
100% with you on this
Ditto. I want Baker badly, but I'm a Sooners fan, so probably alot of homerism on my part. But I saw every game Baker played for OU, ever snap, and there's not a bigger competitor, at any position, on any team, in college football. AND, Baker is crazy accurate, and crazy-good in making something out of nothing!
-
Honest question, and I'm going to ask and then have to run, my apologies, I'll be back to respond.
Question: Do violent video games play any part in the school shootings? I really don't know the answer now-adays (kitschy language intended).
I know it didn't matter to me personally, and I don't think games had any negative influence on my generation, short of 20 extra pounds from inactivity. But I grew up with Mario and Samus and Zelda. I still play now, but as an 'adult'. So, do the ultra-realistic, violent video games of today share any blame in teen/young-adult violence? I don't think so, but what say ya'll?
-
24 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
All those Trump officials pleading guilty and you think it will to Hillary being in trouble? That would be surprising
Would you really be surprised, after having read through this thread? Hmm?
-
29 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Let's talk a bit about the Gates guilty plea today and how it shows us where Mueller is really going... Hint, it's not Trump.
Here's the filing: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4386213/2-23-18-Gates-Information.pdf
Gates's plea deal means now, officially, it's game over for Manafort and Podesta. Manafort and Gates's indictments are all about money laundering and illegal lobbying - none of which has any connection to the Trump campaign or Russian collusion on Trump's side. This remains an undeniable fact that many suffering from TDS refuse to acknowledge.
These indictments are also, clearly, about the Manafort/Gates's connection to Podesta and the Clintons - and seem to show, yet again, that Mueller is NOT investigating what the left assumes he's investigating. His probe so far has turned up nothing about collusion, but EVERYTHING about Fusion GPS and the Podesta Group's connections to the Russian Collusion narrative. This started off as speculation over a year ago... but now we're into the realm of being able to prove it definitively.
Slowly the dots between indictments are connecting. For example, take the Zwaan indictment from a few days ago. There's NO WAY Mueller or his team would have missed the links between Skadden (Craig and Sloan), the Manafort/Gates Yanukovych work, and the Clintons. I say this because if I found them, then I'm positive Mueller and his team have too. The fact Mueller is indicting Papadapolous and Zwaan is an indication he is focused on the weak links in the Podesta Group/Fusion GPS chain. Both are young men who will sing like birds with the right pressure applied. Add to that the Gates plea today is the first "conspiracy" guilty plea we've had and remember what I said the other day about how you "flip" a witness - you don't let them plead to lesser charges until after they've served their purpose.
Gates is going to spill everything - not just about Manafort, but also about Podesta and the Podesta Group's involvement in the campaign.
The reality that's becoming more and more apparent by the hour is that Manafort and Papadapolous were plants, sent in by Podesta and the DNC to spy and implicate Trump's campaign should the need arise. This is clear from not only these indictments, but also the stuff we covered previously about Pap wearing a wire while being ordered to stay away from Trump and his team.
Tony is next "man" up. We haven't seen or heard from him since he shuttered his lobbying group - that's not something an innocent man does btw. He's known for some time what's coming his way.
That's where this is headed, the next big indictment to drop, I'm almost certain, will be Tony Podesta. And then from him, you're into the Clintons and her campaign directly.
Just in time for the Horowitz report to hit...
I was late to this board, this page, and this thread, but I've read through all 119 pages of it. It's grand entertainment if nothing else. But I swear, if there is any justice in this world, I hope you're right, and I hope it ends up going all the way up the chain to Shillary herself. Any but the most partisan hacks know now that she's dirty as can be. I just wonder if the dirty footprints will work their way up to obamer.
3 minutes ago, Logic said:
Trumpie indictments, guilty pleas, and those turned state's witness piling up. Still nothing to see here, I'm sure.I guess we'll see! All high-drama and entertainment!
Methinks it won't turn out the way lefties want, but we'll soon see!
-
1 hour ago, Tiberius said:
Sounds like you are bucking to pressure to dismiss what I say anyway, but ok. Why are you listening to the board trolls anyway? Be your own person.
*****
Presidents always have more flexibility after elections. It's just the way our system works. What was the context there? Could have been nothing. Not really much there to go on. With Obama was it the Iran nuclear deal? Or something else? We don't know. It could of been about a cease fire in Syria for all we know. I can understand partisan could twist those situations for political ends.
Are you pissed Trump ran over to
talk to Putin alone at the international meeting? Are since its Trump you give him a pass?
Yes, presidents, and any elected official, get to have more leeway after they are elected. And I give you kudos for actually stating what may have happened in the Obamer situation there. Like you're not going to believe any insidious actions could have been taking place with Obamer, I'm going to likely believe that any action Trump was taking while acting as CiC were for the good of the country, although I don't know the context of the interaction you were asking about.
-
3 hours ago, B-Man said:
NEEEEEE!
52 minutes ago, Tiberius said:What does that conversation mean to you? I was just asking a question yet you seem to have a strong yet unstated opinion on it. Since you asked me, I ask you
My Ugh was disappointment. They said you were just a troll that couldn't engage in rational debate. I've seen the way you interact with most, and I see how you're probably on 'ignore' from most. The ugh was me being disappointed that I might not get to debate with you. As to the conversation, I'd have to scroll back up to see what it was about again.
-
1
-
-
Ugh, for real? That's disappointing. I really don't want to talk in an echo chamber, and I hoped he was a thinking lefty.
-
On 2/21/2018 at 3:33 PM, Tiberius said:
And?
Against DC's advice, I'm going to engage you for this one. How can you possibly say, "and"? If that was Trump, you'd be apopletic! That should drive any American crazy with outrage. Unless you like what he proposes, that he can be more lenient with the Ruskies after he secured his second term. Just swap the faces, and imagine how you'd react if that were Trump doing and saying the exact same thing that Obamer was caught saying. Here's your chance to show that you're not just a left-wing hack. I'm listening.
-
I must not have been around here long enough to get Cuga's predilections. I must be missing the joke.
-
26 minutes ago, B-Man said:
THAT’S WHO THEY ARE, THAT’S WHAT THEY DO:
Are you surprised? I'm not. That's the sad state of journalism today. And I'm sure this goes both ways, I'm sure Fox News was calling people too. The difference is, the Fox people aren't trying to take your rights away.
-
39 minutes ago, LA Grant said:
Why should they question their beliefs? It's every 18-year-old's inalienable right to own an AR-15. I know this because it was George Washington's wet dream. Besides, how could the guns be at fault? They're poor innocent guns! They don't shoot themselves, do they?
All I'm saying is give guns a chance. In a teacher's hand.
The 2nd does protect their right to apply for a rifle, that part your'e correct about. And I've not met a gun that did anything bad on its own.
You really make the point yourself: people do things. Bad people do bad things. The tools they use are not at fault. I think you see that from what you posted, but yet you still end up blaming the weapon used. The easy joke is about a 'tool' being used. The tool used seems, to me, to be secondary to the problem at hand.
41 minutes ago, LA Grant said:Well, hold on here — why should a gun get locked up on a first offense? First time DUI offenders get leniency, and we don't take their cars away. I don't see why we should have to be so harsh on guns if they've only shot people ONCE.
This is clear evidence that you don't care to discuss the matter rationally. Guns = bad in your world, I get it. End of discussion.
-
I almost poo'd laughing, but that wasn't nice. Cuga didn't do anything to provoke that toward him/her/it. It would have been funny directed at anyone though.
-
1
-
-
I don't doubt you. It's just odd, because sometimes he posts something that seems like a semi-rational thought. Maybe it's unintentional. Maybe he quotes something from somewhere else that he doesn't give post-credit for. I know your cranky-old arse has been here forever, and if you say he's a lost cause, so be it
I'm a crotchety old fart myself. I just hoped new blood might bring out something in some of the lefty-turds that they hadn't shown yet.
DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
It was said in jest. Do you really not get that? (I'm thinking you do). He was saying something along the lines of 'Hillary is so haphazzard with her email security, and can't find the 60K+ emails she 'lost', and the 'Russians' were hacking her server....maybe the 'Russians' can help her find them? I'm pretty sure we all get the context of what he said.
I'm not sure what the point is, but if Trump ran on a 'lark', and beat out the white-woman-annointed-one, what does that say about that flawed candidate? She had the red-carpet rolled out for her by the MSM, and STILL lost in the generals. Heck, if not for the fixing of the primaries in your party, she would have likely lost there as well. Such a flawed candidate she was.