All Activity

It's funny that the program has gone further and further downhill since OU fans/boosters ran out of town, and now the best way to fix the program is to bring in a Spates guy as HC and a Spates guy as assistant.

Canuck Hoaxing. Eurotrash hoaxing. 300 million Canadian (luckily not very much in real money) was given to friends of Justin with no strings attached. Just like USIAD money and all the Billions of real money Brandon's team was throwing out of the Whitehouse after (s)he lost the election. Money for nothing!

Said all the recently dead guys just before they became new zombies.

I doubt Yazdani is going to make 86kg again especially if the doctors are telling him not to. Apparently Ramazanov is moving up to 92kg this year so its possible we will see a Yazdani-Ramazanov rematch in the very near future (2026) if the rumours are true. I'm interested to see Firouzpour wrestle him as he has already beaten Naifonov and Kurbanov. Hopefully he can avenge Yazdani's loss to him in the olympics. This also makes 86kg pretty open. Kadimagomedov, Kadiev, Ghasempour and Valencia all competing will be fun to watch.

Fair enough its just that 97kg is going to be stacked with Snyder, Tazhudinov, Yoshida and Sadulaev in the mix. Its very possible 1 or 2 of those guys don't medal depending on how ends up on what side of the bracket. Unless Azarpira has the tournament of his life its quite possible he will face two of Snyder/Sadulaev/Yoshida/Tazhudinov in the quarters/semifinals at least. Can he beat 2 of them back to back is my concern.

I appreciate your effort, so I am gonna restate my position as well as I can, and if someone points out an instance where I was implying something else I'll apologize. "In a world where we are all moving forward productively, you should not criticize someone for saying what they think, especially if you should have inferred that belief already." -Me. If you don't support his belief that is a different and much deeper question than whether he should have said it or not. Aside from that, I think Brooks has 1.5 feet in the a$$hole camp, I think he's immature and narcissistic in his perception of religion and use of his platform, and I think his public statements are self serving and do nothing to promote the causes he claims to be advocating.

I thought about this post some more and reread the last few pages. I think, I might be starting to understand your position a little bit. When I heard that NCAA Brooks interview initially, my honest reaction wasn't "hey don't disparage Muslims" (I don't care about them) but rather, "damn it Brooks, don't tell me what to think or believe, I just want to watch some wrestling!" Even so, at the time of the interview, though I thought it was awkward and pushy, it wasn't until I saw his YouTube channel, heard his "holy Spirit infused" underhook interview, and listened to the dumpster fire that was the Basch interview that I came away with the thought that this guy was a bit of an asshole. I think the NCAA interview, being on national television and feeling so out of place with the celebratory and uplifting tone that I think such an event aspires to be, served as the most notable example of why people, including myself, find Brooks to be unlikeable. I don't think, based on my read of this thread, that people were arguing that Brooks was an asshole because he was mean to Muslims. That's certainly not my position. however, I can't speak for the other posters. I do however, now understand why that message may have come across in the first place. I've been really mean to Brooks in this thread so I'd like to again highlight This interview where he comes across really well and actually changed my opinion of him. But then the failed test occurred and I went back to being a skeptic and negative nancy

If we're talking pure quantity of terrible posts, I have more than #2 & #3 combined...

Around the hour 40/45 mark is where is my mind. Maybe the most popular tune to learn on guitar. Enjoy!

Let me know how that works out for ya.

I explained why. It was incredibly uncommon. But the language about freedom, unalienable rights and liberty makes it crystal clear that it's protected. Only activist judges can deny that.

give an example

ok so "stop admiring people, they might do something bad," is the solution? thats not gonna work

You explained nothing. &nbsp let me ask you this. They took a few years to draft the bill of rights. To make sure they got it right. Why isn’t it in there ?

We already explained why. Go back and read.

States rights are only good for the good good lobster if he agrees with the stimuli. Else it’s bad.

but giving it back to the states must be a good idea to you red lobster?

So you still didn’t find it in the constitution?

BINGO

Haha! I liked your post (well, Bob Doled it). To be fair, I'm not sure he was actually referring to your post. That said, I've made 134 terrible posts (and counting)...I just keep coming back and this forum just keeps putting up with me!

in other words... leftists hell bent on killing the unborn for some reason or another, didn't really exist yet

there is a word for this wordsmithing it's on the tip of my tongue...

Constitution's Silence: The Founding Fathers did not include abortion in the Constitution because it was not a pressing concern of the time, and it was largely seen as a private matter best left to individual decisions and common law. The Constitution focuses on broader principles of governance and individual liberties, not specific medical procedures or social issues. Evolving Attitudes: Attitudes towards abortion began to shift in the mid-1800s, with some physicians seeking to criminalize it, leading to the gradual adoption of laws restricting abortion in the late 19th century

Show me where that discusses colonial America.