TBayXXXVII

MDC's trolling thread about groomers on the right. Here's the link talking about teachers/educators: https://helpingsurvivors.org/child-sexual-abuse/schools/#:~:text=The GAO estimates that a,sexual assault other than rape. The very first paragraph: "School sexual abuse of K–12 students by school employees is a serious, ongoing issue that is severely underreported. The U.S. Department of Education estimates that one in ten children experience some form of sexual misconduct by school employees. It is never too late for a victim of school sexual abuse to speak with a sexual abuse attorney about taking legal action over abuse." The Department of Education is estimating 1 in 10 children. It's not some random activist group or someone with an axe to grind against teachers, it's the DOE themselves. Further down the page is this: "The GAO estimates that a single teacher sexually abusing students can have up to 73 student victims. From 2017 to 2018, there were 14,938 incidents of reported rape or attempted rape in public schools alone. For the same time period, there were another 14,152 reports of sexual assault other than rape."

Irony once again, King Troll calling someone a dummy. I posted a link in another thread, 5300 allegations have been brought up against priests in the US since 1950. In that same post, I posted a link that stated there were 29,000 allegations against teachers/educators in ONE YEAR. Notice how one got a ton of coverage and one got none? Shocking that the pro-Teacher/ pro-liberal support group got no coverage, but the pro-Catholic/pro-conservative group got a ton, is it not?

6,000 kids sexually assaulted by priests in 50 years Liberals: Priests/Catholic church are a problem 30,000 kids sexually assaulted by teachers/educators in ONE YEAR Liberals: ....................

MLB deserves the majority, if not all, of the blame.

Yeah, I see another dumbazz just like you.

LOL, you're such a moron. Too funny.

Gotta love King Troll. Makes an argument no made, and argues against it in some virtue signaling attempt. No one here said trans women ONLY compete in sports against women because they know they can win. What a loser.

It's why discussions with him are a waste of time.

No, my stance is that if we did away with 100% of sanctuary cities and states, it would make changes to the asylum process more effective. People will always take the easier route. If the two options are path to citizenship by coming here illegally or by waiting 1 year (instead of currently 4+), people will still come here illegally. You keep thinking that my stance is that Republican's are "good" and Democrats are "bad". Nay nay, it's Republican's are sucky azzholes and Democrats are the scums of the earth that need to scrubbed from society. China, Canada, Venezuela... they can go there.

Jamaal Charles never played on the team with Mahomes. Charles' last year in KC was in 2016, Mahomes was drafted the following year. Yes, Charles, like McCoy & Westbrook played with QB's who weren't that great of passers... they were "solid", Mahomes is great. Agreed with your last statement, which is part of the reason for my stance on Pacheco.

He's combining people who were here legally and overstayed their visas with those coming here across the southern border. He's being purposefully misleading.

This can't be done because liberal states would need to do an about face on their Sanctuary State/City policies, and that will never happen... because it's racist. You can't fix ANYTHING, until you fix that. Why? Because as long as liberal states/cities will allow illegal immigrants to stay and benefit from society, the immigrants have no incentive to come here legally. In fact, by some liberal states allowing EVERYONE to get drivers licenses and with that, automatic voting registration, they're pushing more aggressively in the direction of sanctuary cities and states.

My guess is ignorance.

No, because the costs of heating it would be expensive... unless you have dragons who can work 24/7.

The irony of Gutterboy calling anyone a troll. The best part is that he's doing in a thread that he's trolling!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I don't disagree. I just think that you can't really predict a game script with Kansas City. I'm willing to bet that there was a 0% chance that Andy Reid went into that Jets game saying, "Ok, we're going to really attack them with the run game". Now, I do think he was open to being more balanced against the Jets who are a bottom 10 team against the run, but I think it's safe to say that if the run didn't work early, he was going to abandon it. Why do I say that? The Bears aren't that good against the run either and the Chiefs never committed to trying to run the ball... even when they were up 31-0. So, I don't disagree with anything you're saying really, the problem for me with Pacheco is that if you start him, you're always playing with fire. Even though he may be an RB2... I'd treat him like a 2nd flex option until I see KC commit more to running. Now, if someone thinks they well, I'm certainly not going to tell them they're wrong... I'd encourage them to take the route they believe. Just that I wouldn't see it that way. He might too... we saw it in Philly with Westbrook and McCoy, but we haven't seen it yet in KC. My guess is because Mahomes is a much better passer than McNabb was.

Shocking!! Good for those WOMEN.

Oh, ok. I only read his initial post. I wouldn't drop a guy that I expect to start... to pick up Williams, but I would drop a bench guy that I don't expect to start unless it's for an injury replacement or bye week. I'd drop Roschon Johnson to pick up Williams. Johnson's only getting 5 to 8 touches a game on a team that doesn't move the ball much or have many offensive plays. Unless you think think the Bears are going to be more like Baltimore and run the ball 35+ times per game between their RB's and QB, then keep Johnson.

Last year, Pacheco was RB24 or better only 6 times (top 16 only twice). This year, he was RB30, RB29, RB12, and RB6... and that RB12 was a gift against the Bears. I see him as an RB3 with "hope" that he might be an RB2 as the season progresses. I think his ceiling is (on average), RB20 for the rest of the season. The Chiefs just don't run the ball enough. In that Bears game, when the score was 31-0, they still threw the ball 10 times and ran it 5 on their next 2 drives that generated 10 points... at which point, they pulled Mahomes and Pacheco. If you think the Jets game is a sign of things to come, then buy him as an RB1 to ensure you get him. If you think the Jets game is an anomaly, then buy him as RB2/3.

I'd hang on to him because he's the most talented back on that team, but I wouldn't consider him a must-start. I'd only play him if I had to until he shows 1) he can produce and 2) stay healthy.

If you have a spot and a need, sure, but I would never expect to start him unless I had to.

Never heard of that show. Had to look it up. After I did, still don't ever recall hearing of it or seeing it. Won't give away the answer because someone may actually know it.

I should've known you didn't come up with such a great idea.

I don't think that's possible. I believe that you have to back out of the draft by a certain date to be allowed to go back to college.

Exactly.