I friend of mine had a spinal stroke. He was parallelized for a while now can walk with difficulty. A bunch of famous musicians recorded his songs to raise money. You can purchase the album "silver patron saints" a bunch of good music by current musicians. good contemporary rock stuff. Here are two. One with Springsteen. One with Ian Hunter [video:youtube][/video]
And Ian H[video:youtube][/video]unter
Here is a list of musicians Bruce Springsteen, Billie Joe Armstrong (Green Day), Elvis Costello, Lucinda Williams, Tom Morello, Bleachers, Spoon, The Hold Steady, Dinosaur Jr., The Wallflowers, Alison Mosshart (The Kills), Wayne Kramer (MC5), Frank Turner, Rancid, Counting Crows, Susanna Hoffs, Tommy Stinson, Agnostic Front
A close friend of mine who I have known for many years and a DIY guy.
He got up on the roof and just lost it. He had to be helped down.
It is confidence and balance. Once that gets a little shaky. Give it up.
I have fished in rivers since I was a small boy. Waders, boots, fly rod, and lots of walking. Rivers all over the country. Wild, fast water with free stone bottoms all over the West. You have to be in shape. It is easy to fall in current on slippery rocks. I never gave it a thought. I went fishing in Nevada on the Truckee river about five years ago when I was living in Reno. High steep banks with big boulders in the river. After a short period of time. I just stopped. Walked back to the car up a steep hill. I was happy to get the waders off and just sit in the car. I knew then it was over.
I am going to Iceland in July. One of the best places on earth to fly fish. I am not even packing a rod.
For my age I am in good shape. But aging breaks you down like a river wears down stones.
Originally Posted by Bull_Dawg Pit butchers logic and lumps opinion and facts together both his own and others without regards to how they were originally presented and acts like it doesn't matter. It's maddening to me.
You have just posted irrefutable proof that rather than address the message you attack the messenger. This is a very old and worn out approach to dodge legitimate counterpoints.
Quote
People (myself included) don't know what they don't know. Yet, some people are aware of that limitation, while others seem oblivious. Sometimes people do know things that others don't, despite the others thinking they know something that they actually don't.
Throwing out wild hypotheticals isn't even attempting to present facts and you do a lot of that.
Quote
Personally, I find more arrogance in someone claiming a falsity as fact than in someone pointing out their "fact" was false. I'll admit I can be "haughty" in my condemnation.
As you drivel on about that without supplying any evidence of these "falsities" you are claiming. But you have a habit of that. And remember, as you post this nonsense you are the person who claimed bombing a location wasn't bowing it up. And being haughty, a very mildly descriptive word to explain your actions. While at the same time exactly what you were accused of. You sound like a person who describes them being a very stubborn person as being strong willed.
Quote
This isn't pointed solely at you, mgh888, but like I said I have my principles. I don't doubt your intentions, though. I can't say the same for others, and honestly we're well beyond the point where responding to him directly serves a useful purpose.
And now you claim that after I've pointed out fact after fact, you try to call out my intentions. Once again your superiority complex comes shining through. And now you're using it as a weapon to ignore me pointing out your questionable and shady logic. For someone that claims to be so skeptical, war doesn't seem to something you remotely try to be skeptical about. Odd how that works.
I get it. You can't dispute it so you have decided to ignore it. There is a lot of that going around these days.
Don't blame me because you can't defend the points I have been making. You're fully aware that you have done more deflecting and creating hypotheticals than posting facts. It seems as though your accusations are far more an admission.
If you want to address me or my actions, man up and stop doping it in a backhanded way to a third party. Surely you have a little more spine than that.
It's not irrefutable proof of personal attacks, it's a brief summation of your standard actions and how I feel about them.
I'm not the one constantly claiming BS as facts. I present my hypotheticals with question marks. They are to be thought about. I don't expect them to be treated as gospel (like you seem to with every twisted word that you spew.) I keep the facts and my opinions separated.
Saying I claimed bombing a location isn't blowing it up is yet another falsity. I said blowing a facility up is different than blowing "them" (an entire civilization) up. Go figure, you did exactly what I described that you tried to characterize as a personal attack.
You sound like a Donald Trump word salad when ranting about my word choices. I didn't call myself the names you want to, how dare I?
You don't know what a fact is, or at least act as if this is the case. You make up BS and claim it is a fact over and over. It almost never is.
You're the one that's caught up on superiority complexes. I don't say I'm better than you. You are just frequently demonstrably wrong. Everybody can be wrong. Most people just aren't as certain of themselves when they're wrong as you. They don't dig deeper and deeper into being more and more wrong. The more wrong you are, it seems the more certain you pretend to be. Don't change my words and make up BS, and I won't make you feel like an idiot, or so it seems with your constant superiority complex "drivel."
Call me out and you'll get the response you deserve. Bull, horns, you know the drill.
I try to ignore you because everything you write is almost all nonsense. When you misrepresent me, I'm going to defend myself.
Why don't you show the spine to fess up to your BS and stop being such a nuisance that has to change other peoples' words in a seeming attempt to feel better about yourself?
I used to have to go up on the roof for various reasons. I stopped doing that. It is not the ladder. It is getting from the roof back on the ladder. I started to become more conscious about it. I just ended it with why take the chance?
Don't you know it. Last year, I had to sit there and think about how I'm getting onto the ladder from the roof without losing my balance, and I struggled doing it. I don't know if it's the lack of flexibility or just the lack of confidence, but I decided right there that I'm not doing this anymore. I've been up there many times in the 30+ years I've been in this house, climbing up and down that ladder without a second thought.
Von Miller was the MVP. Yes, technically Peyton Manning was the Super Bowl winning QB, but he wasn't height of his powers Peyton Manning at that point.
It's also kind of interesting how many top QBs only have one Super Bowl win. Elway kind of rode Terrell Davis and defense to one of his.
Brady is more the exception than the rule. And he's the one that went in the 6th round.
I think having a good enough QB with a great team around him is a more realistic Super Bowl path than making the team worse for the chance to potentially have a (maybe) great QB.
Obviously there is value in the QB, but I think Myles' value to the entire defense is somewhat being overlooked. Without Myles, I don't think our defense works. Putting a rookie in a shootout every week is not necessarily a recipe for success.
I'd be focused on other avenues than Myles, if possible. Like only last resort, every stone turned over, and he demands out.
Is Brady the best of all time because he's Brady, or was Brady the best off all time because he was on good teams because he didn't maximize his contracts? Would Brady have been Brady on the Hue Jackson era Browns?
Could DW be a QB for another 7 years? Well, that's possible but how many of those over 30 QB's have had 2 Achilles injuries? He's had other injuries besides that also. I wouldn't bet DW will be a QB into his late 30's.
Originally Posted by Bull_Dawg Pit butchers logic and lumps opinion and facts together both his own and others without regards to how they were originally presented and acts like it doesn't matter. It's maddening to me.
You have just posted irrefutable proof that rather than address the message you attack the messenger. This is a very old and worn out approach to dodge legitimate counterpoints.
Quote
People (myself included) don't know what they don't know. Yet, some people are aware of that limitation, while others seem oblivious. Sometimes people do know things that others don't, despite the others thinking they know something that they actually don't.
Throwing out wild hypotheticals isn't even attempting to present facts and you do a lot of that.
Quote
Personally, I find more arrogance in someone claiming a falsity as fact than in someone pointing out their "fact" was false. I'll admit I can be "haughty" in my condemnation.
As you drivel on about that without supplying any evidence of these "falsities" you are claiming. But you have a habit of that. And remember, as you post this nonsense you are the person who claimed bombing a location wasn't bowing it up. And being haughty, a very mildly descriptive word to explain your actions. While at the same time exactly what you were accused of. You sound like a person who describes them being a very stubborn person as being strong willed.
Quote
This isn't pointed solely at you, mgh888, but like I said I have my principles. I don't doubt your intentions, though. I can't say the same for others, and honestly we're well beyond the point where responding to him directly serves a useful purpose.
And now you claim that after I've pointed out fact after fact, you try to call out my intentions. Once again your superiority complex comes shining through. And now you're using it as a weapon to ignore me pointing out your questionable and shady logic. For someone that claims to be so skeptical, war doesn't seem to something you remotely try to be skeptical about. Odd how that works.
I get it. You can't dispute it so you have decided to ignore it. There is a lot of that going around these days.
Don't blame me because you can't defend the points I have been making. You're fully aware that you have done more deflecting and creating hypotheticals than posting facts. It seems as though your accusations are far more an admission.
If you want to address me or my actions, man up and stop doping it in a backhanded way to a third party. Surely you have a little more spine than that.
While I think this is noble, this is a message board comprised entirely by adults. This day and age, I find it hard to believe many are swayed by someone posting all day on a message board. People are either happily set in their echo chambers, or they aren't. "Shielding" others from BS shouldn't be anyone's responsibility.
You never know who is lurking, and chronological adulthood doesn't mean as much as one could hope.
You never know what is going to sway someone.
I don't think echo chamber or not is that clear cut. If no one tries to disrupt the echo chamber, the chances of people staying there go up. Are there those who will stay there regardless? Absolutely. Yet, not everyone is so fervent. The impressionable passerby is more likely to get sucked into the echo chamber if there is no pushback.
Maybe it shouldn't be anyone's responsibility, but it feels like there is a need, and responsibility was quite literally pounded into me. If I don't take on the responsibility, it doesn't seem like anyone else will.
But, yeah, definitely not going to do it full time, all the time. Some topics feel more important than others.
All I can tell you is the support in the UK was political because the PM did not back the US - and the opposition thought it had a chance to score points. It was not in any way related to how close or otherwise any UK politician believed Iran was to a nuclear weapon. You can take my word on that or not - I don't mind. It's the truth.
"Absolutes are never good" .... that's an absolute and as I wrote it, I smiled. Hence my follow up comment. That was all.
How do you know the support was political? How do you know that the PM not backing the US wasn't political? How do you know that not a single UK politician believes Iran was close? I'm fine with you presenting that as your opinion. Once you start claiming something is "the truth", I'll need more than your word. When you start claiming to know what no one can know (others' private beliefs,) I'm troubled.
I try to be very careful to say I think and it seems to me, when I'm interpreting what I believe the facts mean. Yet, some people insist on presenting their opinions as facts. If presented as an opinion, I'd have a lot less to argue with. If someone presents something that isn't fact as fact, I'm going to argue with them on principle.
Pit butchers logic and lumps opinion and facts together both his own and others without regards to how they were originally presented and acts like it doesn't matter. It's maddening to me.
People (myself included) don't know what they don't know. Yet, some people are aware of that limitation, while others seem oblivious. Sometimes people do know things that others don't, despite the others thinking they know something that they actually don't.
Personally, I find more arrogance in someone claiming a falsity as fact than in someone pointing out their "fact" was false. I'll admit I can be "haughty" in my condemnation.
This isn't pointed solely at you, mgh888, but like I said I have my principles. I don't doubt your intentions, though. I can't say the same for others, and honestly we're well beyond the point where responding to him directly serves a useful purpose.
watson is 30 years old. watson has been with the Browns since March of 2022. That's four full seasons. In those four seasons he has played in 19 games.
Stats alone can't predict the future but what they can do is establish the likelihood of how things will play out moving forward.
What Ifs, they are never ending. What if Jesus comes tomorrow, NFL won't matter. I hope we never trade Miles Garrett, he's been a Super Brown, except for his driving.
Again, what if Watson lights it up with our new coach and offensive receivers. What if our new O line opens holes enough so our running backs run well and they protect the QB enough to new O weapons....we could make the playoffs, who knows......Go Browns!!!!
True, being on sidelines isn't helping your team. Watson has higher career rating than Mayfield. He's younger. Stafford is 38 starting another season. IF Watson plays well- he could be QB for next 7 years or so. I hope his marriage has straighten him out and hope he lights up the NFL with our new receiver weapons. Go Browns!!!!
JMHO, I'm not a Watson fan, BUT, who knows about the future. Who's better QB- Watson or Mayfield-- better look at career stats and Qb rating. Stats could say WATSON- plus he's YOUNGER than Baker. If Watson lights it up this year, Browns could sign him to another contract. New head coach, is he going to let his Qb starter who performs well to LEAVE. The world throws us all curveballs, stranger thing have happened. Go Browns!!!
PS- I'm surely not a fan of Sanders, he's to showboat for me. Our Hog QB is a wildcat.
The most likely scenario is of course DW winning the job. It’s no secret I have no real faith in Sanders. There is a very decent shot that DW plays well. As mentioned, it’s a contract year and he has a lot more talent around him. This is a team that’s a little more than a QB away. If not this year, next. That assumes our revamped OL is middle of the pack and our WR’s and TE’s are indeed significantly upgraded.
So let’s say he plays well. Like top 10. Then we’re likely going to the playoffs and who knows what from there. (Yea I said what I said).
And then of course we’re looking at extending in that scenario. We’d just have to. A good QB is just too valuable. An hilariously awful situation to be sure. And… there’s a solid chance we offer him a deal and he walks anyway. In fact, I would almost guarantee he leaves if he has other legit starter options. Even if it means making less. I don’t even think it’d be about the Browns really, it’s about escaping his past, about leaving the last 5 years far behind, getting away from the stink. So wouldn’t that just be the cherry on top. It’s also no secret that I really have no love for DW. It will always be hard to root for him. So if he plays great AND he sticks around, it’s gonna be… interesting.
Sanders is never going to be a viable long term starter. I’m willing to put money on that. So.. assuming DW moseys we’re back to next years draft. And a late pick. So moving miles becomes a very real possibility in that scenario. In fact, after this years draft, that was my first thought about next years draft. It’s pretty much the only pocket ace we have left to get up high. If we’re where I think we’ll be, next year it’s going to be critical to solve for the QB. That’s when this whole thing comes together or falls apart.
I really like Myles Garrett, but if it is the only avenue to getting the QB the Browns desire, then I have to look at historical perspective.
The top pass rushers in NFL History: Bruce Smith, 19 years, 0 Super Bowl wins Reggie White, 16 years, 1 Super Bowl win with Brett Favre as QB in 1997 Lawrence Taylor, 13 years, 2 Super Bowl wins with Phil Sims QB for both in 1987 and 1991 Deacon Jones, 14 years, 0 Super Bowl wins Demarcus Ware, 12 years, 1 Super Bowl win and Vonn Miller (See below) were on the same Super Bowl winning team with Peyton Manning in 2016 Vonn Miller, 15 years, 2 Super Bowl wins, the second was 2022 with Matthew Stafford as his QB AND Aaron Donald. Aaron Donald, 10 years, 1 Super Bowl win, with Matthew Stafford as his QB in 2022. Julius Peppers, 17 years, 0 Super Bowl wins Michael Strahan, 15 years, 1 Super Bowl win, Eli Manning as his QB in 2007, the last year of his career. Kevin Greene 15 years, 0 Super Bowl wins Chris Doleman, 15 years, 0 Super Bowl wins Jason Taylor, 15 years, 0 Super Bowl wins JJ Watt, 12 years, 0 Super Bowl wins
Arguably the 14 best pass rushers in the history of the league and they have 8 SB wins between them, 2 of which came in the same game and also (2) each from two players. They split these 8 wins among 5 indisputable franchise QBs (2 with Stafford). No pass rusher from this list has a Super Bowl win without a franchise QB. Half of the list has zero Super Bowl wins.
My point is, Myles Garrett is the other guy on this list above, he has 9 years under his belt and zero Super Bowls and zero franchise QBs that he has played with.
Now, we could do the same exercise with the top 10 QBs in history
Tom Brady, 23 years, 7 Super Bowl wins Joe Montana, 15 years, 4 Super Bowl wins Peyton Manning, 17 years, 2 Super Bowl wins Johnny Unitas, 17 years, 1 Championship and 1 Super Bowl wins Drew Brees, 20 years, 1 Super Bowl win Dan Marino, 17 years, 0 Super Bowl wins Roger Staubach, 11 years, 2 Super Bowl wins John Elway, 19 years, 2 Super Bowl wins Aaron Rodgers, 21 years, 1 Super Bowl win Brett Favre, 20 years, 1 Super Bowl win
So, the top 10 QBs have won 21 Super Bowls and another NFL Championship game...Only one, Dan Marino, doesn't have a SB win. I could keep going, the rest of the top 25 QBs of all time, all but 2-3 have Super Bowl or Championship wins. MOST of the top QBs have won a championship.
I would have to give the nod to franchise QB being the most important position to find in the NFL. That being said, being a franchise QB doesn't guarantee a Super Bowl either... Eli and Phil both have (2) Super Bowl wins, but they aren't in the HOF. Teams can do half the work as well..., but you almost always need to have a better than average guy behind center to have a fighting chance.
IF they deem a QB worthy of that projection, I would have to say, they need to do whatever necessary to get that guy. If that means trading Myles Garrett to do it, then so be it.
Now, if the top team in the draft is unwilling to trade and takes that QB, don't just trade Garrett for the sake of drafting a QB. At some point, they might need to make another leap of faith like they did with Watson. I just hope they look at more than ONE YEAR of stats when choosing whether or not that player is worth a trade. It was definitely the person that made that trade fail, not the ability that he showed on film for one season.
And while I agree with you to a very great extent, for any sane person it's obvious that a lot of this division and chaos begins with what is being said and posted from within The White House and at Mar-a-Lago. Once a contagious disease starts, an epidemic will soon follow if no controls or constraints are put in place to contain it.
There's lots of bat chit crazy Trump fans. There's lots of people that fall into that bracket on all sides. Picking one or two or a dozen even - and making posts that they represent the whole of one side or another is one of the things that's most wrong with SM and people/online in general. I'd bet a small fortune that many of those types of posts (anti Trump or Pro Trump) originate in a foreign country by organizations designed to sow dis-hmarmony in the USA. The fact that absolute morons and muppets happily spam them across all forms of SM and online is as big a problem. From condoms for Hamas to - "look here's a typical libtard, and they are all exactly like this"
I will track him some this year because I see raw ability.
College players seem to jump all over the place. Going into the 2025 season Beck, Klubnik, and Sellers were supposed be to great prospects. Now not so much. Guys rise and fall.
Mestemaker has a first round grade? I don't know if that is valid.
The Browns are most likely going to draft a QB in 27. I want to see who is out there.
Moore and Manning are up there now with others.
The guy I saw last year who I loved was Mateer. Until he was injured I liked him more than anyone else.
This year I will be looking closely at the college QB class.
All I can tell you is the support in the UK was political because the PM did not back the US - and the opposition thought it had a chance to score points. It was not in any way related to how close or otherwise any UK politician believed Iran was to a nuclear weapon. You can take my word on that or not - I don't mind. It's the truth.
"Absolutes are never good" .... that's an absolute and as I wrote it, I smiled. Hence my follow up comment. That was all.
The older you get the more you find out what you used to do is further away from what you can do now.
I used to have to go up on the roof for various reasons. I stopped doing that. It is not the ladder. It is getting from the roof back on the ladder. I started to become more conscious about it. I just ended it with why take the chance?
Also endurance slips away. Not all at once but a slow decline.
You accept the declines even though you find it frustrating.
IMO the worst thing you can do is give in to things. Your internal dialogue starts saying I can't do this. And slowly you start backing off all kinds of things. You should push yourself. You should take the steps instead of the elevator.
You should care about health because it really hard to enjoy your life if you feel lousy or limit your true ability.
'Utterly Surreal': Critics Flag A Striking Detail In Trump's Iran Deal Update
The president appeared to name a decades-old agency that could be of no help to efforts to end his unpopular war.
President Donald Trump on Monday proposed that the “Atomic Energy Commission” could help oversee the destruction of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile as he looks to negotiate an end to his unpopular war with the country.
But there’s one apparent error with the proposal: the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission was dissolved over half a century ago.
“This is getting utterly surreal!” wrote Erik Townsend, one of several critics on X who flagged the president’s mention of the defunct agency on his Truth Social platform.
Earlier in the day, Trump pitched on social media that the stockpile of what he calls “nuclear dust” — a sticking point in the talks to bring the conflict to a close and reopen the Strait of Hormuz — be “immediately turned over to the United States to be brought home and destroyed.”
He laid out other alternatives, as well: the enriched uranium could also be “destroyed in place” in conjunction and coordination with Iran or it could be destroyed “at another acceptable location, with the Atomic Energy Commission, or its equivalent, being witness to this process and event.”
Townsend noted that both Pakistan and Israel currently have an “Atomic Energy Commission” but neither “make sense” in the context of Trump’s pitch.
The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, formed in 1946 under President Harry Truman, was tasked with developing and regulating nuclear technology.
After the AEC was dissolved in 1975, its duties were split between two agencies: the Energy Research and Development Administration (which merged with the Federal Energy Administration in 1977 to make the Department of Energy) and the still-active Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Neither the AEC nor its successors, however, have typically been involved in such a mission to disarm a nation of its nuclear material.
Others on X wondered whether Trump was referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency, a body that would monitor Iran’s compliance with an international agreement to dispose of its stockpile.
The White House did not immediately return a HuffPost request for comment.
They REALLY need to get someone to proof read great grandpa's posts before he puts them on social media. But they've needed to be doing that for a long while now.
Absolutes can be okay when they aren't false. False absolutes are always bad. (That might be a situation where an absolute is ok. Still was uncomfortable to write)
And creating false narratives have been proven to be even less reliable and more dangerous.
Quote
I think the middle paragraph is tilted to support your beliefs.
You of all people posting this means you aren't even reading what you yourself has been posting.
Quote
I think people saying Iran is a threat and dangerous is more prevalent than you care to admit. There are degrees to that, but you seem to be saying that most people in power and leadership saw what Iran was doing as fine, which isn't true.
And yet nobody has said that. The degree for which war was a needed and immediate need is is the point here. That could said be said for many locations around the globe.
Quote
There was no public call to war because war is unpopular (as it should be.) Yet "wars" were already going on and have a tendency to spread and worsen, and Iran was already involved in one with our allies through proxies.
Yes Israel invaded Lebanon in the 1982 beginning the the first war between the two in Lebanon. We gave bombs to Israel to level Gaza just like Iran supports Hezbollah in Lebanon. The fighting between the two has been going on back and forth on an intermittent basis ever since.
Quote
Wars have a tendency to escalate and Iran ramped up HEU production. If it were just any one individual thing with Iran ("Death to America") it would be different than the totality of bad things that we have, the supporting terrorists part in particular.
Israel is widely believed to possess an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Experts and intelligence agencies estimate the country has a stockpile of approximately 90 nuclear warheads, with capabilities to launch them via aircraft, submarines, and ballistic missiles. I would just like to ask you, if you were in Iran's shoes, would you want your neighbor who has been trying to get the U.S to help destroy you for decades now to have such nuclear capability without you having an equal threat in retaliation?
Quote
Yes, people in power have more information, but they also have more concerns. You don't know why they are making the decisions they are making.
And neither do you.
Where it seems you may be lacking in trying to be objective here, or maybe you're not trying to be objective here, is who the terrorists are depends on where you live.
If your family was bombed and killed during the Iraq war and finding out the U.S. allegations for the cause of that war were false, who do you think they would think they would consider the terrorists to be?
If your family lived in Gaza and had no affiliation with Hamas, then Netanyahu claimed he was going to destroy Hamas....... But his method of doing so was to carpet bomb civilian neighborhoods killing everyone living there, your wife, children, parents and grandparents, neighbors and friends. Who would you consider the terrorists to be?
Now I'm certainly not trying to label Netanyahu or the U.S as terrorists even though I would more likely label Netanyahu that way because his acts of wiping out innocent people living in Gaza was quite purposeful.
But I mean I get it. In the U.S. it's quite normal to look at things from one side. To not consider how people feel based on geography. On who they consider the bad guys to be based on their life experiences.
These conflicts that we have far too often insert ourselves in date back sometimes for several decades and in some cases even hundreds of years. And every time we do that we deplete our own resources and jack up our own deficit.
With all of the back and forth gong on here, Iran was no "direct threat" to the U.S. Netanyahu had been trying to get a U.S. president to get involved to help him destroy Iran for decades. Well he finally found one.
We had no problem getting allies to join us in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iran that isn't happening. The same reasons you are giving as to why they are not getting involved now has existed forever. They certainly existed before the previous two wars in the middle east happened. Yet the outcomes are completely different. As such if they joined us then but refuse to now, you're going to have to do better than that.
And yes, there's a lot of they could haves, they might have, but they have been saying.... and on and on it goes. But none of that changes anything.
Just because Pit keeps arguing doesn't mean that he hasn't figured out he's wrong. Plus, other people read, too, and leaving his BS up unaddressed for others to potentially believe seems wrong.
Wasting time is relative. Posting on message boards in general could be seen as a waste of time. But, kind of like journaling, formulating arguments in text helps me clarify how I feel about things in my own mind. Rather than stewing on it alone, posting gives some sort of psychological relief. (And as enraging as his posts can be there's something borderline addicting in the strong feelings he can bring out as someone whose emotions are generally blunted.)
While I think this is noble, this is a message board comprised entirely by adults. This day and age, I find it hard to believe many are swayed by someone posting all day on a message board. People are either happily set in their echo chambers, or they aren't. "Shielding" others from BS shouldn't be anyone's responsibility.
So you've never watched a trump rally obviously then. Even the head head honcho is out there throwing tantrums and calling the other side nasty names. You forgot to add Murica! And Freedumb! to your post.
Yeah, but you don't see the Idiot Freaks at Trump rallies. No one with blue hair, no guys wearing women's clothes. No one dressed in a furry costume, etc.... there are so many idiots I cannot name them all. They all reside on the left side of the aisle.
