mspart

You are correct, it was reported, but taken from the little man's own words. The reporter or news agency did not make that up. Quote: I think it is far more admirable to kill a racist, homophobic, or transphobic speaker than it is to shut them down. When right-wing groups invite such speakers to campus, it is precisely because they want to provoke and incident that discredits the left, give more publicity and validation to these reprehensible views than they could otherwise attain. So Plasi, those are his own words. First it is "admirable to kill a racist, homophobic or transphobic speaker". Then he says in the very next sentence that "right-wing groups invite such speakers to campus ... that discredits the left...". He is plainly associating the former with the latter. It was not the reporter that did that, it was this little man that did that. Does t he fact you are semi fighting this mean that you agree with this little man? Or is it something else? He said all this stuff. Is he right or wrong for thinking this way? What should happen to him? mspart

Since when does law enforcement hold back filing and take the opportunity to speak for a prosecutor? If there is no evidence of wrong doing, which Comey admits there is, then no charges are filed. It is not up to the investigators to determine what a prosecutor will or will not do. Just more trying to "not get involved in the election process", while trying to insert yourself completely. Read that statement from Comey again, and using what we know Hillary actually did, and see if there was no intent on her part to do anything untoward. It is obvious she had intent to deceive. But the law was not applied because the investigators presumed to be in the role of a prosecutor and wanted her to win rather than Trump. Keep in mind the words of Strzok. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45173015 A veteran FBI agent who exchanged anti-Trump text messages with a colleague during the election has been fired from the FBI, his lawyer has said. Peter Strzok has been accused by Republicans of being biased against Donald Trump, and seeking to prevent his election victory. Mr Trump has pointed to the text exchanges as evidence of bias in the special counsel's Russia probe. Mr Strzok served on the Russia probe and the Hillary Clinton email inquiry. During the election, Mrs Clinton was investigated by the FBI over her use of a private email server to handle sensitive government documents during her time as secretary of state. Mr Strzok exchanged text messages that disparaged Mr Trump with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he was having an affair. In one exchange, Ms Page asks: Trump is "not ever going to become president, right? Right?!" Mr Strzok responds: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it." Everything is on the up and up here. Nothing to see here. It all just goes away. mspart

They aren't changing the rule, because the House won't go there, but as I demonstrated the D Senate wants to change the number of justices from 9 to 13 so they can have a liberal majority like they used to have. That is changing the rules. Do you not agree? mspart

Please explain how Trump could charge her with anything? Barr is another matter. He could have moved that direction. I have no idea why it wasn't pursued. He probably didn't want to be next on the hit list. Anyone that did what Hillary did would be rotting in jail right now. What she did is no conspiracy, it is on the web for all to see. I need to amend that, it was a conspiracy that she wishes never came to light. As a result the details are on the web for all to see. Classified information in unclassified areas, without knowledge of oversight, she kept vital government records on a server outside of government control for the purpose of not having them searched, and she tried to eliminate the data with bleachbit software to hide her tracks which is destruction of evidence. Who doesn't go to prison for these things? Hillary, that's who. mspart

They would never do that. mspart

No one ever said it was a lease. It has always not been a lease. Why try to change the topic here? If he is living in Joe's house and monthly rent is 49.9K, who else was getting that money. Oh yeah, it was for some other property not listed on this form and it was a quarterly rent. Uh huh. It came as a result of info on his laptop that wasn't his laptop but was a Russian disinformation program that turned out not to be Russian disinformation but was indeed from the laptop that now is conceded to be his. I hope you could follow that. Please show, based on this form, how it is quarterly rent for some place in DC. Is it logical to conclude this explanation based on this form? mspart

I don't think this is correct. This is not according to lifenews.com, it is the professor's own words that make the equivalency. It was only reported by lifenews.com. Below is the idiot's complete statement: So he is strongly advocating murdering right wing speakers by citing a previous case in some other country to justify this insane position. Yep, just murder anyone you disagree with. Pretty soon we'll all be dead, except the last man standing. This just reinforces that the left do not want to discuss. They want to shout down, and if that doesn't work, just kill them. They do not want to discuss the merits of their own positions because that would make them defend the indefensible which might put them in a place where they are not safe and cozy. Best just to rid society of these people so they can feel safe in their safe spaces. This is adult reasoning from the left on perfect display. It has come to the logical conclusion that Marxist authoritarianism has always resorted to and why Communist countries are known for slaughtering their own citizens. Dissent is not to be tolerated. Free speach is a wonderful thing unless it goes beyond what "we" think is acceptable. This guy needs to lose his ability to teach at any institution of learning. Just a hateful resentful little man who no doubt has been spreading his venom for years now to his students. mspart

There is more than being broken hearted that you didn't get your 4th NCAA championship. Just to name a few: McIlravy lost a heart breaker in the 2000 Olympics in the semis. He came back to beat the Belarussian guy for 3rd. Terry Brands same deal. They were heartbroken yet came back. My feeling is Lee is saving his knees for Senior Wrestling competition. Based on his "toughness" and "relentlessness" that is the only thing I can think of that makes sense to me. Giving up is just not in his nature. It must have been for future reasons. Just my $0.02. 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