All Activity

Home of the Arrogant Bastard.

Coolest brewery I was ever at was Stone Brewing in San Diego

I do like the idea that you have to complete the rideout for the win. Like you said with the 12 vs 15 seconds of riding time, when the first guy on bottom escapes immediately, then the match just turns into the other wrestler having to choose neutral and try to get a TD while the other guys backs up and stalls for 30 seconds. If one guys escapes in 2 seconds and the other escapes in 5 seconds, is that really how we should be deciding the match? I'm a bit surprised and think stalling needs to be adjusted to compensate for the three point takedown. After this years NCAA tournament, it really stuck out to me how easy it is to win if you score the first takedown. The tactic is simply to score the first takedown, then turn to wrestling a defensive match. Go into the third period up 4-2, wrestle just enough to only get called for stalling twice (it's pretty hard to get hit for stalling 3 times in 2 minutes), and win 4-3. I call it the Antrell Taylor special after he used it against both Bianchi in the quarters and Blaze in the finals. McGowan nearly pulled it off against Vincent Robinson, but blew it by getting taken down with 1 second left.

But if you did what brew would it be?

So more evidence he’s not a great guy, but does nothing to help prove the claim that he’s MS-13, which as a reminder is the reason he was sent to CECOT

No drinking needed. Search X with “ai used to develop legal cases” or any similar search. 50% feasibility, 50% having fun on a message board.

Marco Rubio explicitly told you why he revoked them. "We gave you a visa to come and study and get a degree, not to become a social activist that tears up our university campus. We've given you a visa and you decide to do that — we're going to take it away," An illegal resident is a non-citizen living here without permission of the government. I think a fourth grader could probably have figured that out on their own, but happy to help.

Maybe you should find evidence of something before establishing that something is a fact. And maybe stop trying to to divert attention from the current, very real illegal things the current administration is doing in sending these people, the vast majority of which do not have any serious criminal record, to a prison where they have no idea when (or even if) they'll ever be released.

but pretty much this:

What's an "illegal resident?" Prove it was politics? There are many reasons a student visa can be withdrawn.

Did you drink before/while writing this?

What are you even babbling about now? My dog has more object permanence than you.

We had pretty much the same laws and constitution back then. I just want to know the loophole so we can expedite the deportations today.

Then read about Clinton. On September 30, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996" IIRAIRA established expedited removal, in which immigration officials gained the authority to summarily remove certain aliens.[39] This is different from the expedited removal proceedings for aliens convicted of aggravated felonies. Aliens subject to expedited removal include aliens "who are inadmissible because they lack valid entry documents or have sought admission through fraud (may also include aliens inadmissible on same grounds if they are present in the United States without being admitted or paroled and have been in the country less than two years)".[40] Expedited removals can be considered removals without hearings: these removals do not require judicial review by immigration judges within the Executive Office of Immigration Review unless the individual plans to apply for asylum or indicates fear of persecution.[41][42] Therefore, aliens subject to expedited removal do not have the right to administrative review or the right to administrative appeal and judicial review.[40] Because expedited removals do not require judicial or administrative review, aliens who are subject to expedited removals are not afforded the right to an attorney during their interviews with immigration officials.[40] Is this the LOOPHOLE? I asked a few times.

The vast majority of them did and none of the ones being deported are charged, or even accused, of crimes. Of course, this is the point of the exercise. The Trump admin wants to get rid of due process for political enemies. They are starting with immigrants. We're next.

yes they were approved. now they are not. non criminal behavior... is that like kidnapping someone who works in the building?

No, but having a student visa does. That is the literal definition of a visa. They were approved to live and attend school here. They did not break the law. Their visas were revoked because they have different politics than the administration. The only difference between this and what @Scouts Honor posted is that something actually happened to these people. They were, in @mspart words, targeted for non-criminal behavior, which he says is bad! I look forward to him condemning Trump as the most anti-free speech president in the history of the country.

...I don't care, I didn't vote for Obama in either election (McCain in 08, Johnson in 12), and criticize away. He's not president right now though, so I don't care what he did 15 years ago anywhere near as much as I do about the people being harmed right now, in this moment.

he was... and did the same thing on a grander scale yet know wailing and gnashing of teeth

NOW A HOKIE FAN!!

No but if everybody gets due process all the time for everything then explain what loop hole Obama found to deport so many and conduct drone assasination strikes. Reason being is then Trump can use said loop hole and everybody will be happy.

I don't believe he really does. Seems like a game to me...

Why, is he president?

Then explain Obama.