Rockpile233

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

The ESPN broadcast made a point to mention Pegula’s love for Allen. If you think that wasn’t a contributing factor ok, but I certainly do. It might work out, it might not. We’ll see...

The sexy picks have been made. I’d like them to stay put and focus on OL.

If you invest in a project QB, do the right thing by him with development. I don’t see any point in rushing him in unless he somehow can’t be denied in camp.

Well...time to just get on board with it.

Pegula meddling

I actually warmed up to him, it seemed like a genuine apology.

Just say no to Josh Allen.

I’m definitely worried that Beane is boxed out from Mayfield/Darnold/Rosen. It is what it is, but if that’s the case I’ll be upset if he moves up. Should just stay at 12 in that scenario.

That wouldn’t make any sense. I thought everyone had to play on Thursday night.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.patspulpit.com/platform/amp/2018/4/19/17256724/2018-nfl-schedule-release-new-england-patriots-rumors-coverage-online-streaming-opponents This site is saying IN BOSTON week 8.

I used to care about this...now I value being home at a reasonable hour on Sunday after a home game. Fingers crosses for all 1:00pm at home!

I think he’s asking if you pour the grinds into the filter prior to placing it into the machine vs placing the filter in the top and then scooping grinds in. I definitely pour grinds first. Nobody is perfect afterwards and you run the risk of missing and getting unwanted grinds into the pot.

I appreciated much of what he had to say. While I haven’t been impressed with Housley, there is no doubt he has a group of disengaged, lazy, whiny players to work with. It’s your job to listen to the coaches, do your damn job. I’m not usually hung up on the “intangibles”, but it’s tough to watch this group wallow without any clear leadership, especially if they are tuning coaching out as well.

Trendy description aside, it’s way better than the basically abandoned space I’m always driving by.

This is just so great! I can’t stop laughing.

Surprised that with a name like buffalobud420 you’d be so high strung.

Wow, didn’t know he got after it like that. I seriously thought it was fake at first it’s so over the top.

I LOVE BRANDON BEANE

I work in contracting, costs will go up, which will be born by the consumer. Today we are talking Steel and aluminum. The consumer will bear the cost of any revival. Other industries will have their own layoffs. We are finally heading towards some loosening of the purse strings, both on the consumer level and corporate level. I’m skeptical of anything that leads to people tightening up, which would offset a lot of the good accomplished this year. “Global Automakers said that President George W. Bush’s 2002 steel tariffs cost the economy 200,000 jobs, including 30,000 in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.” I was too young at the time and not concerned with these things, but tell me how we’ll be better off this time?

Sure you can artificially boost these jobs and industries back, but it’s just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

To me I would say a modification is not a firearm and thus wouldn’t be guaranteed under the second, but I’m in mechanical contracting and not constitutional law. We’ll see if they even attempt legislation, I imagine this conversation will die down again soon enough.

You lost me at Ron Paul... But anway is a bump stock even an “arm”? If representation does in fact craft a bill to ban sales of them and Trump signs it, how would the court interpret that? It’s a very different climate than 2010 despite it being not that long ago. I’m really asking here how you think they would interpret it I’m not pretending to know.

"The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations," the NRA said in a statement in October. They are not gun grabbers.

I’m assuming very few of those were legal firearms, but the conversation was age vs. likelihood of gun violence, so I feel the correlation stands. If if we are trying to limit the cases of school shootings (I will grant I was too unfocused with mass shootings) I feel like limiting ownership at younger ages is a fair debate. Increasing the drinking age led to fewer accidents involving drunk driving. But yes, that was not in the Bill of Rights. Isn’t it one of the Scandanavian countries?