All Activity

Does isis have a secret initiation? Membership fees? Ranks and insignias on uniforms? Secret handshake? Prob not an organization.

I forgot that he is close to Cenzo, but lets be honest, I thought PSU was like the Navy SEALs and Major Leagues of all wrestling rooms in the world. (esp for upper weights) Now he wants to go to the minors?

Yes, absolutely. It has a hierarchical leadership structure that can be identified and defined. It matters because a terrorist designation strips you of certain rights in this country and has political consequences for people who are perceived to be a part of said group. The key word there is "perceive." That's why it matters. "Antifa" does not exist as an organization. There are hundreds of small groups - maybe even a singular person in some cases - who are labeled as Antifa because they proclaim an anti-fascist ideology. But they are not centrally organized - or really organized at all. These groups operate under their own autonomy, not according to a broader strategy. It's exactly this diffuseness or blurriness of what "Antifa" is that makes this decision so dangerous. If you can't clearly define what Antifa is or who is a "member," then you can label any group or individual who you believe shares their ideas as Antifa, and therefore a terrorist. That's why I compared it to designating "Conservatives" as terrorists. For example, say the Biden administration, using the actions of a group of Conservatives - who like Antifa were not part of larger, definable organization, declared that "Conservatives" were terrorists because they share the ideals of the Conservatives who stormed the capital. Now they have the justification to treat every Conservative in the country as a terrorist. As many on here know, I attended the Palestine protests. Donald Trump would probably call me "Antifa." I've never attended a meeting or met anybody who has claimed to be a part of Antifa (because that doesn't actually exist). Yet, if I were to go to such a protest now, I could be targeted as a terrorist because I'm - simply by virtue of sharing some of their political views and commitments - "Antifa." One last extreme example to show the point: being an Islamist does not make you a terrorist. You have to actually join a terror group or commit an act of terror to be a terrorist.

I'm with you. That's why I made https://wrestlingrecords.com/. The lack of data in wrestling is pretty crazy. Followed you on Medium, you have some great stuff.

Babylon Bee delivers again: Unfortunately that article is behind the paywall so I cannot link it here.

The paste below Sounds similar to antifa if you ask me boss. The 3 letter agencies IF dedicated to finally looking into antifa —> I bet will find a structure… even if it’s loose and unofficial. There is no public list of all official members of ISIS, but the group's top leaders have been identified through intelligence efforts . The overall number of fighters is difficult to confirm, though UN and US government estimates place it in the thousands across the group's operating areas.

Zero violence.

Q Anon should be a terror org too. Much much worse than antifa.

I believe they have official members. Don't know if they should be designated as terror org. Probably.

I moved to MN and started following NCAA wrestling in the late 80's, 90's so I have an anti-Iowa bias and I never saw some of the earlier legends that are on so many lists. D. Ness, B Askren and B. Andonian were a trio of the most exciting NCAA wrestlers because yo never knew what was going to happen next. Ryan Lewis was the right guy at the right time for my sons and I to be fans. It was all over once he hooked up those arm bars! Kole Konrad. Watching him compete against and eventually develop a strategy to defeat Mocco was exciting. Heroes need foils and the Conrad/Mocco rivalry was great. The Brandvold-era Gable Steveson. There was never a question of his physical talent but Steveson peaked when he had Brandvold in his corner to keep his mind right. Dake - Mr. Bright Lights. He always rose to the occasion. The bigger the stage the better he wrestled. Dieringer, Yianni and Vito would round out my list. Hot take: David Taylor is a popular choice here and an incredible wrestler, but I found him boring to watch.

mspart

I'm on the spectrum and I've taken Tylenol. Even within the last hour. I like who I am, but I think Tylenol owes me reparations. Maybe I would be a better speeler.

Hi all, I find this instructive. Jonathan Turley had a debate at Colgate with Michael Klarman, the Charles Warren Professor of Legal History at Harvard Law School. The topic was on “Is There a Constitutional Crisis? How Would We Know?” Klarman took the affirmative view and Turley the opposing view. Turley gave a report on the debate here: https://jonathanturley.org/2025/09/23/the-turley-klarman-debate-a-video-and-a-response/ The first statement is really interesting. It goes like this: Professor Klarman stated at the outset that he would present a condensed version of a talk he had given at Harvard. As a result, he did not focus on the specific question presented beyond saying that what constitutes a “constitutional crisis” means different things to different people. Instead, he presented a list of grievances against Trump, the MAGA movement, the Supreme Court, Congress, and the media as evidence of the rise of fascism and authoritarianism in America. So Klarman did not even address the actual topic of the debate but went to other places. Not much of a debate if you can't stay on topic from the very get go. Klarman also said, “I am going to be extremely factual. Everything I say I can cite check chapter and verse for. You are right to beware of misinformation today but you are not going to get any of it from me.” Not only is this a quote from the article linked above, it is a direct quote of Klarmans. Interestingly, one of the first things he said was factually wrong. Turley, because of the topic of debate, did not get into all of the issues Klarman brought up because they were not on topic. But the below is one thing he did address at the time and he has a list of others he did not address at the time but addressed in this article. However Turley says that: I did address a couple of factual assertions during the debate. For example, Professor Klarman later claimed "that he had spoken completely factually and challenged the audience with “what did I say that is not true?”" And made the following statement: “[Trump pardoned] violent insurrectionists including several who were directly responsible for the death of police officers.” As we all know, no police officers died as a result of Jan 6. Only one person died as a result of Jan 6 and that was Ashli Babbit who was shot by Capitol Police. Officers did die of natural causes after Jan 6 and of suicide later on. So did protesters. Turley discussed this fairly thoroughly, saying: As I pointed out, only one person died during the January 6 riot, a protester named Ashli Babbitt. The claims that police officers died that day are false, though often repeated by politicians and pundits. The New York Times helped spread the false claim that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died as a result of being hit with a fire extinguisher. Sicknick suffered two strokes and died of natural causes the day after the riot. As a past correction states, “The medical examiner found Sicknick died of natural causes which means ‘a disease alone causes death. If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural.’ Four other officers committed suicide days to months later.” Other officers died months later from such causes as suicide, but there is no direct causal link to the riot. So Klarman decided to air his quarrels rather than debate the topic. Which I find is a tactic used by the left mostly and some on the right. They make a statement off topic and pound on it and then change the topic to something else which is what Klarman did as you can see if you read the article. A video of the debate is included in the article so you can see it and not trust what Turely is saying. I think this experience is very emblematic of people having a debate not knowing the rules of a debate which is to stay on topic. This guy is a chair in the Harvard law school and can't even stay on topic. How did he ever get his law degree is a wonder and how he is at Harvard, the premier law school in the country is another wonder. Or maybe not. mspart

Well being that Gutfeld is the only one that's serves the right on late night that people would consider worth watching, it stands to reason he would have more viewers since Fallon, Colbert and Kimmel are all splitting that same audience. If you added up their respective audience they easily overshadow Gutfelds' audience. But who likes nuance these days anyways...

You sound like someone who just fell out of a coconut tree.

Potentially missing the ability to read and digest information as I stated above that I thought Tyler was the one who shot him.... You guys are saying some person named 'The Left' shot him and I don't know who that is...

Serious question. Is isis an actual organization? Should isis be designated a terror org ?

More threats of physical violence...

I actually happened the other is make believe.

Pretty sure Vikings were not part of our founding fathers for a reason.

A much better, more thorough, and cited paper. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-rise-of-political-violence-in-the-united-states/

Because it's not an actual organization and there's no official members. It's very simple. Watching the dumb wingers try to define who they are while constantly contradicting each other is both sad and entertaining. This is akin to designating " the wingers" as a terrorist group. Seriously. Dumbest thing ever, after saying Tylenol causes autism.

Good thing pro terrorist anti American people aren’t in charge boss.

The electoral college AND Senate BOTH need to be abolished. They're both crap and undermine principles of a representative democracy. I'd gut both of them with impunity.

Maybe the Democrats will learn one day that you don't win or lose an election with the popular vote. It has been the electoral votes that count and only the electoral votes. Trump won by 86 electoral votes. 312 t0 226. Right around a 16 Percent win.