LA Grant

lol, jesus f***ing christ. You are a model PPP citizen, Boyst. "What's fair criticism?" About the exact opposite of what you've dumped here with the rest of your diarrhetic drivel. It's like trying to explain calculus to a second-grader and you're stomping your feet about long division. No. That's not accurate. Second-graders have the capacity to learn. So because David Hogg is in the media, because he's speaking about gun restrictions, because people agree with him, this makes him fair game for slander, libel, and namecalling? How do you feel about the rumor that Trump molests his daughter? Or Barron is threatening to be a school shooter? Or, because you are participating in social media by posting on this message board, that it'd be fair game to spread rumors that your mom's a prostitute? Would those outright lies be fair game from your POV? They're all media figures.

Would you kindly provide examples of "fair criticism" to David Hogg from commentators/pundits/journalists? All I've seen has been outright slander, libel and name-calling from conservative pundits.

Mm, so then you're just sharing your feelings again? Got it. In response, I'll just quote you: "I don't give a f*** about your feelings."

Tom, you can't claim moral high ground in tone/language while your tagline is "sniping at retards from the balcony." Well, you can but you just look like a fool.

Sounds good. How do you want to pay for it?

Please tell me why the US is more likely to follow that path, as opposed to the disarmed populations in Western nations throughout Europe, Australia where that hasn't happened? Still curious — what's your opinion on Philando Castile? He was a lawful gun owner murdered by a hostile government. Why didn't 2A protect him?

What I'm wondering is, why do we frequently hear "what about black-on-black homicide? thugs are the issue, not guns!" whenever restrictions are discussed, but never "white-on-white" gun violence?

First of all, do you understand the definition of "genocide"? Second, because that's the ridiculous argument you've been making, that's why, you're just afraid to state your actual position. As usual. Otherwise you could clearly articulate what the "slippery slope of government oppression stripping our rights" would be in practice, as a result of stronger gun restrictions, despite no reason to think you'd have any less liberty than the day before. Instead, you've pointed to examples of civil wars and genocide in African countries. What's your opinion on Philando Castile? Keith Lamont Scott? Stephon Clark? Tamir Rice? John Crawford? Hell, go ahead and tell me what you think about the Black Panther Party?

When will the white community address "white on white" gun violence?

Ah yes, yet another leap to genocide. You cowardly old fart. I think one more "t-t-the next step is white genocide!!!" post from a PPP regular & I get a free sandwich.

Haha, just trying to bring some light to the cockroaches.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-supporters-share-more-fake-news-junk-news-oxford-study-a8199056.html

Always been curious how the conservative view of Hillary is simultaneously "puppet master pulling the strings" and "frail granny." I guess her caricature contains multitudes. 1) Wrong connection. Not "all" the same. You and Tasker, for instance, are a very special brand of stupid. There are degrees of reasonableness here, in tiny glimpses, but it is largely the kind of nonsense you spout. 2) I don't think I am superior. People are people, flesh and farts. But not all viewpoints are equal. Some things are wrong. A grand majority of your posts are links to partisan propaganda designed to undermine political opponents, from David Hogg to Robert Mueller. The post from LAzFan continues to insist that Hogg is a "puppet" and should be discredited. It's morally obscene. Recognize wrong from right is not a given in individuals, as you continually demonstrate. 3 & 4) Sure. That's probably the explanation. It means you're confused on what "liberty" means, mostly. It means you have a tenuous grasp of the world around you. It's why I like your caricature of me, and how you're unable to realize it's more revealing about you than anything. What's a SWJ?

Pithy and useless, as expected. "tl;yi" — may as well be "Tom lazy; you insightful." Well shucks. Thanks b!tch.

Ha, that's cute. DC Tom: Define disease <defines disease & why it applies; Tom leaves> DC Tom: Define Occam's razor <defines usage & why it applies; Tom thinks the definition is not the definition; Tom leaves> DC Tom: What about Dresden <point out why it's irrelevant, Tom leaves> DC Tom: What about Hillary <points out why it's irrelevant, Tom leaves> Also DC Tom: It's the other guy who can't/won't read anything other than his own posts. Also — "Smell the fart posting" ... lol, so your clever put-down is a marble-mouthed version of "sh*tposting"? The funniest thing is this is your attempt at being creative or funny. You have to wonder, Tom, if I'm only here to hear myself talk... why here? Multiple people have put me on ignore. Makes you wonder, because this isn't the only politics board on the Internet. Hell, it's not even the best board to discuss politics with Bills fans. If I were only here to hear myself talk, if I were interested in an echo chamber, why would I come here? I could smell my own farts anywhere but I'm choosing to enter your toxic fumes, Tasker's death-is-imminent type sharting, Rhino's chronic diarrhea, B-Man's version of The Klumps., etc. Why? It seems illogical, if I'm only interested in myself... unless... hmm. A mystery. Tell me — how is posting a bunch of Devin Nunes tweets in a 100+page thread with Rhino/B-Man and a dozen others who already agree on a counter-narrative conspiracy theory NOT an echo chamber? ?

Ah, of course. "What about-ism" is all you've got. Hillary's nasty '08 campaign has nothing to do with The Federalist being unreliable. Thank you for sharing your useless farts as always, old man. What's your opinion on the bombing of Dresden? Lol, ok, so first of all — You refuse to read my posts but I'm expected to keep up with all of your drivel? Do you have a single principle that you apply consistently, or no? It appears like your character is as soft as your mind. Second — you know exactly which Federalist article I'm referring to. The one that implied the kids are not in control of their actions, that they're being puppeted and controlled. You and DC Tom, both obviously highly literate, insisted that wasn't the message of the piece. Hundreds of comments on the article gleefully said, yes, that was the message. You refused to acknowledge this, which is alarmingly hypocritical, as you're also the loudest one about being critical of media. You live in a heavily filtered reality cocoon that you've created for yourself, and when it's pointed out, you have to then also block out the person pointing it out. It's a vicious cycle.

Message board name-calling doesn't bother me, as I told you before multiple times, ya li'l crotch-sniffing puppy dog. What does bother me — what should bother you — is the perpetuation of destructive lies. There's no such thing as honest debate in America anymore, and sorry to tell you, this isn't the fault of "both sides." This is the fault of right-wing billionaires intentionally choosing to disrupt information in such a way that we're arguing about arguing instead of any kind of nuanced discussion. Rupert Murdoch (Fox News) and Robert Mercer (Breitbart) have been very clear about this strategy. Congrats to them because it worked and continues to. Consider what I'm doing here. I personally am wading into the swampy murk of the "other side" to engage. Are you doing that? Are you seeking out liberal politics boards to seek out the opposition? Or are you content in your bubble here, Scrappy Doo? Just along for the ride in the Mystery Van as Rhino, Tasker, etc., pretend the only truth comes partisan right-wing propaganda websites? "Trust me, I know this writer personally!" Rhino says to you, right now in the other thread, and that's good enough for you. "I'd tell you his name, it's easy to find, but I don't want to dox him. Believe him over anyone else, though!"

(Oy, Tasker, again with the awkward homoerotic phrasing — "bare asserts" before, "history buttressing that understanding" — dude, I was clowning on you w/ NAMBLA but now I'm not sure, maybe your subconscious is trying to tell you something?) You keep singing this tune to yourself but it doesn't give your position any substance. We've already dismantled your contradictory ideology — as though it were only the contradictions that made it problematic, and not your many horrific assumptions (ie, your fear of white genocide) — but you're still chirping away like you have any kind of viable vision of society that is based in reality. You're looking at a shred of bark, thinking you see the forest. You do not. You are indoctrinated, living in the Glenn Beck sponsored fantasy utopia where the Constitution is immutable God, and God gives us all we need, and should never be questioned, corrected, or adjusted, under any circumstances. You've made this clear time and again (guns, pedophiles, etc). What Grant wants, what most people want, what the g*ddamn Founders themselves wanted & intended is for a society with laws that are fair for all and serve the common good. You're not interested in fairness, or the common good. You're only interested in selfish, little you and pretending that your self-centeredness is the rugged "individual sovereignty" that makes America great. You see this all as a zero-sum game, as though the individual loses anytime the greater collective gains. Your short-sighted, paranoid, & destructive foolishness — which is not unique to you, btw, as this is a mentality affecting a great many white male gun-owners — is quite literally the problem to making any progress toward fairness & justice for all people. That would be a problem for you if that was something you're interested in. You aren't.

I know him personally. You can find it. You understand that personally knowing a blog writer doesn't make them more credible, right? Also, you remain silent on why The Federalist is an OK source despite the blog's founder being a proven plagiarist. You'd make things simpler for yourself if you stopped pretending you're interested in "journalistic integrity" and just plainly admitted that you want this version of reality to be true. Unfortunately you're so turned around & indoctrinated at this point, that even the mere suggestion of your folly sends you into some kind of panic attack.

Not surprising "ignore" is your endgame, but then again, that's your solution to everything doesn't fit your narrow paranoid worldview, isn't it? The amount of posts you've entered into your personal echo chamber threads are proof of that. Nunes 2020! ??

Rhino: I am the most open-minded person on this board! I am not partisan at all! Read betweeeeeen the liiiiiines, man. Also Rhino: <links to Federalist, Nunes tweets, Hannity, Fox News, etc> Me: Then why are you only posting right-wing partisan sources who have been proven discreditable multiple times? Rhino: lalalala I can't heeear yooooou

Fox News, Federalist, Conservative Treehouse, Hannity, Devin Nunes tweets... yeeeah, B, this thread is definitely all about looking for the best sources possible. "The best sources! Great sources, fantastic sources, very reputable, never the lugenpresse failing New York Times."

He WAS there. This was only ever confusing for snowflakes who cannot handle messages they don't like, desperate to find any way to discredit the messenger. https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2018/03/28/mistake.-wrong.-im-sorry./ https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2018/03/26/new-video-casts-doubt-whether-david-hogg-school-day-shooting/ You f***ing moron. ? How's your Deep State theory looking these days, bud?

It's a reference to the previous gun thread when Tasker doubled down on his fundamentalist read on the Constitution so hard, in absolute opposition to any restrictions on Amendments, that his preferred version of society would strike down this ruling: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/19/scotus.porn/index.html I think it's adorable that you find me clowning on Tasker more offensive than Tasker perpetuating propaganda lies from the gun lobby to discredit shooting victims. Good character you got there, bud. Your posts still make me laugh tho, something about the way you write makes me hear your voice as Scrappy Doo. You: The Parkland kids must be pawns or actors or liars, one or all of those. There is zero evidence of this, just ugly conspiracy theory rhetoric from the usual InfoWars clowns, then trickling down from there through Federalist down to B-Man. Nor can I articulate how this plot could actually make any kind of coherent sense (we'll leave that to a thread for Rhino, covering himself in newspaper clippings & red string) Also you: The NRA are heroic constitutional defenders, who cares if they threaten and bully victims of tragedy because it's inconvenient for their agenda. Who cares if they're corrupt as hell and the worst embodiment of corporate lobbying? They like guns, I like guns, they're good, I'm smart. Also also you: Restricting guns will lead to white genocide (even though it hasn't in European countries with similar gun laws, Australia, etc, but still! It is inevitable! Slippery slope!) Also also also you: "Right to bear arms shall not be infringed"! Arms specifically means firearms, and that other nonsense about a "well regulated militia" doesn't matter, or, it means 18-year-old Nikolas Cruz. If he can't get a gun, it's going to be white genocide in America. Me: You're a horrible f**king idiot, entirely illogical and contradictory, yet unbelievably pretentious. From the avatar to how many times you use awkward phrases like "bare asserts" or in the previous post "bare assertion" — why is it always bare asses with you on everything? Sheesh. Seriously though you are "fork in the electric outlet" dumb but you're a doughy neckbeard in a fedora so you're electrocuting yourself AND you're smug about it. It's astounding. Also me: We have seen countless examples of the NRA as bad actors, yet somehow you NEVER want to talk about it. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nra-accepts-foreign-donations-but-not-for-election-purposes-it-claims/ You: WELL I NEVER. WHERE IS YOUR DECENCY, SIR? Azalin: Stop fighting or I'll come bop ya, I will, ya big ol' meanie!!!

100% agree. Fines as punishment are a joke. This new rule is a half-measure, at best. The rule should be simple and severe. Dirty hit = you're ejected. Period. If you don't want to be ejected, then either tackle your man properly — or don't. If a player was ejected & it's determined the hit was an unintentional accident, congrats, you're not suspended for additional games. If it was clearly intentional, you're suspended minimum 3 games (without pay). Seriously, what's the worst that would happen if they did this? Maybe there would be more missed tackles & more scoring while defenders adjust to Rugby-style tackling? Oh no!