Wrestleknownothing

Will we be treated to a committed shot?

I am surprised by how many open seats there appear to be.

Flex away. That is very flex worthy.

Check this out. An all-time favorite of the wife and I. https://www.southernkitchen.com/story/recipes/2021/07/25/maple-bourbon-smash/8089087002/

That is a topnotch bar. Much respect.

You are changing the subject. If you want tl debate a different thing, fine. But I am talking about the original topic.

Great choice. La Croix is my go to quencher on a hot day.

But the existing law IS being enforced.

What a great idea.

but will it be chilled?

It surprises me, though it really should not, that you guys just cannot recognize the flaw in your thinking. You claim that the existing law is not being enforce therefore it makes sense to have a new, nearly duplicate law. If existing laws are not being enforced then what difference does it make if you have one, or a dozen new identical laws? Since you are struggling with the concept I will answer for you. It makes no difference. If it makes no difference then why are they doing this? My guess would be that they are playing a game of gotcha to generate selective outrage. If so, Mission Accomplished. Now as to whether the existing law is being enforced. How are you sure it is not? https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-arrests-275-noncitizens-sex-offense-convictions-during-nation-wide-law

I had no idea how many of you were still underaged.

Interesting. I was not familiar with that one.

I would normally tipple a bit of the brown stuff. But tonight I think a trip to Belgium is in the cards. A La Chouffe and a Houblon Chouffe are in my future. What say you guys?

I think they are also counting on incremental revenue from new subscriptions generated by the event. For every thousand new subscriptions they bump revenue by $150k. I have no idea how many they have currently or how many they expect to generate with this event.

Little brother

Until he re-opens his recruiting. You heard it here first.

You guys are not making the point you think you are making

Does, or does not, a law already exist on the books to do just that?

You should demand to see the manager

It passed

From the NYTimes articel posted: "Many Democrats argued that the measure could actually harm immigrants who are victims of domestic crimes. There is no exception for people who fight back in self-defense against their abusers, or have been accused by their abusers of violence themselves, as there is in current statute. Several domestic violence victims advocacy groups have also opposed the legislation on those grounds." That combined with the fact that there is already a very similar law on the books (with a narrower definition of domestic violence) suggests the issue is one of definitions. That makes a whole lot more sense than every single Dem blah, blah, blah Outrage. blah, blah, blah. And by the way, every single Dem did not vote against the measure. 61 voted for. But Outrage is more fun than facts.

But what if I told you it was 90 minutes (ninety, 9-0, one hour plus a whole other half of one hour) long?

If I were to order the outcomes from most likely to least likely I would go: PSU 3 - Neb 2 = ~40% PSU 4 - Neb 1 = ~35% PSU 5 - Neb 0 = ~20% PSU 2 - Neb 3 = ~4% PSU 1 - Neb 4 = ~1% PSU 0 - Neb 5 = ~0.1% So, I'm sayin' there's a chance.