mspart

San Marino got a good deal with Signore Amine. mspart

Oh yes, I understand that completely. Hence the reason I called it tit for tat. McConnell changed no rules, but I admit he changed decorum on the topic, but worked within the rules. But you are suggesting a wholesale change of the rules so you can have your way. Like I said it is a little like the kid who takes his ball home because he didn't get his way and regardless of your poll, I don't think it would be looked well upon by the majority of voters. It would not end up like Israel, but I don't think Ds would be held in high esteem the next go around. mspart

That west point move doesn't look like much but it puts a lot of pressure there and people submit on their back quite readily. mspart

https://www.lifenews.com/2023/03/27/liberal-professor-suspended-after-saying-its-admirable-to-kill-conservative-speakers/ A Wayne State University (WSU) professor was suspended with pay after writing on Facebook that it is more “admirable” to kill a right-wing speaker than it is to shout them down on a college campus, The New Guard reported. Steven Shaviro, a College of Liberal Arts and Sciences professor, wrote in a Facebook post on Sunday that while he does not “advocating violating federal and state criminal codes,” it is “far more admirable to kill a racist, homophobic, or transphobic speaker than it is to shout them down,” according to the New Guard. The professor was reportedly placed on leave and the incident was reported to law enforcement agencies for review. They don't call it the luny left for nothing. Here is a college professor saying murder is better than verbal engagement. But only if the target is a right wing speaker. I assume murder of a left wing speaker would be unspeakably wrong and beyond the pale and the murderer should be hanged by their toenails until dead. This is the illogical logic that is found in universities and other echo chambers. Here is another with the Wayne State U's President's statement. https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2023/03/27/wayne-state-professor-suspended-for-saying-protestors-should-kill-speakers-they-disagree-with/ The president of Wayne State, M. Roy Wilson, sent a statement to the Warrior community on Monday morning regarding the social media post, which was made by a professor in the English department. The post said that protestors would be justified in murdering speakers they disagree with, rather than just “shouting them down.” Wilson announced that law enforcement is involved in this situation. The professor has been suspended immediately from the university due to the incident. You can read Wilson’s statement that he sent out on Monday morning below: Dear campus community, This morning, I was made aware of a social media post by a Wayne State University professor in our Department of English. The post stated that rather than “shouting down” those with whom we disagree, one would be justified to commit murder to silence them. We have on many occasions defended the right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but we feel this post far exceeds the bounds of reasonable or protected speech. It is, at best, morally reprehensible and, at worst, criminal. We have referred this to law enforcement agencies for further review and investigation. Pending their review, we have suspended the professor with pay, effective immediately. M. Roy Wilson, March 27, 2023 I am grateful Roy Wilson saw through the politics of this and sees it for what it is. The professor should have been fired outright, not placed on paid leave. mspart

Why is Pelosi explicitly allowed to do this but McConnell was not? As far as I know they didn't. The issue is that you folks are really upset that the Ds did not think of this earlier. If Donald Trump were President right now, and in early 2024 Kavanaugh croaked, would you be concerned in the least if Schumer did not hold a vote on Trump's nominee? Of course not, you would voice no concern whatsoever but would applaud the move, regardless if McConnell did this first or not. I expect it this to happen again in the future. The collegiality of the Senate dissolved a long time ago. McConnell was the first to do something that you would applaud if Schumer did instead. Or would you be screaming that Schumer can't do this, it is against the rules, like you are with McConnell? Honestly, I can't see this happening. This is the definition of hypocrisy. This is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. And to remedy the situation, you want to do what Bibi N is trying to do in Israel, change the judiciary by legislation. Based on your arguments, I'm sure you were yelling, you go Bibi!! You go Bibi!! mspart

https://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-false-claim-hunter-195204651.html This in an article trying to say this is a false claim and isn't what it is. So the question is how is this a declaration of a payment every three months for some office space not at Joe Biden's home? From the above article: 1.3k The claim: Hunter Biden paid Joe Biden $50,000 a month in rent for home with classified documents A Jan. 16 Instagram post (direct link, archived link) from conservative commentator Carl Higbie shows a screenshot of his tweet about President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. "Hunter Biden paid his dad $50,000 a MONTH in rent for the home that housed classified documents," reads the tweet. "During the same time frame, @JoeBiden only claimed less than $20,000 in rent payments PER YEAR." The post generated over 7,000 likes in less than a month. Colorado Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert shared a similar claim to Twitter on Jan. 15, where it accumulated over 67,000 likes. Follow us on Facebook! Like our page to get updates throughout the day on our latest debunks Our rating: False The claim stems from a misinterpretation of a form Hunter Biden signed in 2018. The form actually shows quarterly payments he made for office space in the House of Sweden, a building in Washington, D.C., according to a spokesperson for Sweden's National Property Board. The payment was not rent paid to Joe Biden for the use of his Delaware home. So the payment was for quarterly payments for office space in DC in the line that clearly says monthly rent, And monthly rent was $49.9K. I've read the article and it makes no sense based on the above signed form. Maybe this is an extremely complicated form that I am not able to interpret, but it really doesn't appear to be that complicated. For instance, the form says MONTHLY RENT and a number is written in there. The entry "Monthly rent" is not crossed out and handwritten in with "QUARTERLY Rent". Which makes you wonder what the fact checkers are looking at. Maybe someone on here can explain this. mspart

3. No I'm saying the Ds should play by the rules that have been established and used for decades. 4. No, if you can't see the similarity here, I guess we have to agree to disagree. I was correct that you were in agreement with the makeup of the Jan 6 committee, which Pelosi did by changing the rules in the middle. So this is an example you accepting it in one case and not in another. So much for consistency. mspart

He called it the winning move. mspart

Just look at Sherman, he could take down a tank!! mspart

I disagree. Lee was dominant as has been stated. Joe Williams won but not in dominant fashion, his matches were always close. He could have been dominant but that didn't seem to be his thing. I would put him behind Snyder, Retherford and Nickal. I don't think he is behind any of the others. Perhaps we split the difference and say he is one of the greatest NCAA wrestlers of all time. mspart

WTTs will be a skeleton of what they were. I hope this is not a patter for OTTs. That is a fun event to attend. mspart

Yeah right. She broke the law. Comey decided it didn't meet the threshold to take action on a presidential candidate. It is now clear Comey was siding with Hillary and not siding with Trump. So there was a case, it was not moved on. Do you honestly think is Joe Schmoe or Mike Parrish kept his emails on a remote server with classified and non classified communications on it that he would likewise be exonerated? Of course not. He'd be in prison currently and rightfully so. Hillary got special treatment, simple as that. mspart

Hey Vak, 1. If this is correct, why didn't the Dems do it when they had the opportunity in 2021-2022? 2. We must agree to disagree here. 3. No I'm saying no one could blame the Dems if they McConnell'd an R SCOTUS justice nomination. There would be plenty who would try, but it has been done once, it will happen again for either side given the opportunity. What you are failing to understand is that you would have been ecstatic if the shoe was on the other foot and Schumer did this same thing with the same opportunities. That is wanting it both ways - For McConnell not to do it but for Schumer to do it. That is in essence what you are saying. And you want to rush and take it by force by increasing the number of justices. Again, wanting it both ways. You want a liberal court. You had a liberal court for decades and it made you happy. Now there is a more conservative court and it wouldn't matter if it was 5-4, 6-3, 7-2 or 8-1, you would not be happy with that and propose various ways to circumvent it. You want a liberal court by any means necessary. You feel it was stolen from you and you want it back. It was an extraordinary set of circumstances that fell McConnell's way (he did nothing illegal which is your measure here). I don't know of any other time when so many justices were changed out in such a short period of time. 4. I have no idea how it has anything to do with the price of tea in China. Honestly I don't. I was presenting you an example of tit for tat. I assume you were happy with the makeup of the Jan 6 committee. If not, I am wrong on that, and withdraw that insinuation. But I also assume you are happy with the direction the Jan 6 committee was going and hoped that the House would maintain a D majority so it could continue. Again, if that is not the case, I withdraw the insinuation. In other words, I believe you were happy for Pelosi to deny years of decorum and go against the standard policy that had been followed for almost forever. But you are angry at McConnell for doing what he did. They essentially did the same thing. One makes you happy and content, the other makes you angry. mspart

nhs, based on your post, there will be no WTT for 57kg weight class (for an example). From the past, I understood that a previous year medalist get auto berth to Final X. From the past, I understood there was a WTT for every weight class to either choose 2 for final x in the even there is no previous medalist or 1 to face the medalist at Final X. From the past I understood that WTT was filled with US open placers and then some others. But now It appears now that medalists still get auto berth to Final X It appears now that in the case of a medalist already in Final X, US open winner will be the opponent in Final X. No WTT will be held. It appears now that in the case of no medallist, US open winner and WTT winner will be in Final X. Do I have that all correct? This seems needlessly confusing. Why not have winner and #2 from US open fight it out in final X? Cut out the WTTs altogether which they almost have anyway. WTT will be a shell of what it was. I don't mind the medalist getting a break, but US open sets up seeds for WTTs when determines the final participants in Final X. That is pretty straightforward. Anyway, if you could confirm or clarify my understanding above, that would be great. mspart

So why aren't you guys cheering for the triumph of the rule of law with HIllary? mspart

I'll take these as I see them. 1 and 2: You are just thinking Ds vote in this country? Well it is roughly 33% D, 33% R, and 33% I. It is those darn pesky Independents that you need to keep good optics for. 3. Doing nothing is advise and consent. Advise and consent does not mean a vote has to be taken. If they had had a vote and Garland got shot down, you'd be upset that it was hyper partisan. 4. Not projecting on "you want it both ways". I am looking and reading what you have written and made an informed observation. Sorry you don't like it. 5. Bork was Borked by the Ds. They made a verb out of his last name, but I suppose you knew that. In a similar way, the Rs supported certain of their caucus for the Jan 6 committee. Pelosi said no. She didn't even hear them. She completely ignored them. She assembled the most partisan committee the House has ever seen. According to the rules, both parties provide their nominations to the committee. Never has the Speaker completely ignored that. Now this does not rise to the same level perhaps you say, but it is the same playbook. Again, you want it both ways. mspart

I guess we'll see when we see. How does he make it to Final X at this point? Auto invite or does he need to qualify at some other tourney? mspart

Joe Biden did everything he could to get Thomas's nomination railroaded. But at that time, there was more collegiality among the Senators and often members of the opposite party would vote based on objective criteria rather than emotion and ideology. We have gotten away from that and that is too bad. Makes for bad spectacle. The Rs have never gone after any D nominee with the unfettered vengeance that the Ds have to R nominees. mspart

Correct! mspart

Fake news https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/22/politics/legal-drama-surrounding-trump-reaches-a-fever-pitch/index.html The Manhattan grand jury that has been hearing evidence in the case pertaining to Trump’s alleged role in a scheme to pay hush money to an adult film star will sit on Thursday, a source familiar with the investigation told CNN. As always, they need better sources. mspart

OK, thank you for the explanation. 1. It is perfectly allowable for Ds to expand the court if they can get that done. But it is not good optics. It is necessarily an admission that your point of view is not as mainstream as you thought so you will rig the game to get your way. That's how I see it. Like the kid that doesn't get his way and takes his ball home. Same juvenile reasoning. 2. The Constitution says the President has the power to nominate justices, with the advice and consent of the Senate. That does not mean that the Senate is bound to consent to the choice. Ds made that quite clear with Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh. Successful and declining the first, not on the other two though they tried mightily. The majority Senate, by remaining silent, did their Constitutional duty of providing advise and consent. In the latter case, the hearings were rapid I agree, but were just. Again, you want it both ways. You don't get that in life or in politics. But people still expect it. Regardless, McConnell played the hand dealt to him. It doesn't matter if you like or don't like Schumer, he would have done the same thing. AND, you would not complain about it, far from it. You would applaud. Thus showing that you are not idealistic in this matter, but boldly and partisanly political. To put it plainly, McConnell's move was wrong. Schumer, if he did the same, would be valiantly and vociferously validated. For you, it is not that it was done that is the problem, but who did it. That is not a very objective way to look at this. mspart

Lee got caught on a crazy move. When was the last time you saw anyone do anything like that? Maybe Sadulaev vs Snyder in the World Finals. When Lee got turned around, he looked shocked, at least how I remember it. He had the presence of mind to get his arms free but it was too late at that point. Regarding forfeiting the rest of his matches, not unheard of. It happens from time to time. My guess is, without a National Championship possible, why put the knees in further harm. Not worth the risk for 3rd place. Especially if he has Olympic aspirations. mspart

Yoel Romero defected I think. Not during wrestling but when he went MMA. mspart

I'm not following your argument here. Your last statement states "exploit this rule". What do you mean by "this rule"? Also, your last statement says, "McConnell's exploiting of another rule?" What do you mean by "another rule"? If you could respond to these questions, that would be great. In addition, you are saying the court has been has high as 10 justices. So that is precedent to go to 13 justices per the Senate Ds stated goal as noted earlier? You know, they should not pussy foot around and just go straight for 21 - Get 'er done!! mspart

You have tried to say that packing the court does not mean increasing the number. But now you admit that is exactly what you want to do. Dishonesty in argument is not a good look. mspart