mspart

Mark Schultz bumped up a weight to stop Ed Banach from being the first 4 timer. He stated that as his goal. And he did it. I think this would be great theatre for Lee and Iowa, but in the end, is it a wise move? With Lee's history of injury, it might be best to not go for theatre. If Lee was 100%, never injured, why not? It would be a great match to watch. mspart

I think he is making his thoughts known. mspart

Is Deglane not a prestigious enough tourney to get our world team there? Any one of our FS World Team? I see Cox but he is going 97Kg which answers the question on his thoughts on the weight class matter. It is great that we have so many going, hopefully not just participating. Great lineup but would like to see more A-listers. mspart

I suppose it could be classified that way. Predicate to having him not run again. I can see it. Regarding Trump vs Biden in the classified documents war. The FBI knew where the Mara Lago documents were all the time. They asked Trump to put them under lock and key, which he did. Biden had them in his garage and a previous office after being VP. These were not under lock and key. They had to be searched out. At Mara Lago, FBI raided and knew right where to go. mspart

Fair enough. I just do a google search and take one of the top choices. Do you consider Factcheck.org conservatively partisan? I don't. I cited their work. I cited Sen Moran's website and I think that is pretty fair to suggest it is the truth. He did in fact sign the letter to Mayor Bowser. Are you disputing that? I cited lozerinstitute not knowing who they are. I know you have something against them. But is the info I cited factually wrong? I also cited Fox news which I suppose you discredited right away. But I posted quotations from Pelosi, Harris, and Schuma. They were direct quotes. Are these quotes incorrect just because they were found on Fox's website? They could be held liable if they quoted wrongly so I think they quoted correctly. Freebacon site you might think is conservative biased and maybe so, but what I quoted from it is objectively true. House voted to remove $71 million in IRS funding. How is that not true? I think if you look at the websites I post and the things I post from them, they are pretty clearly factual. Whether you accept that is on you. I can't be responsible for you nbot accepting truthful facts because of your bias. Being correct, they are not biased as you are asserting. Perhaps other things in those articles are biased but what I posted is not. If I am wrong here, please let me know. mspart

Same with Robert Hur. mspart

Indeed. You have only gone with what you have been told thinking that will win the day. You have provided no facts or other evidence to back up your position. I have. That's irony. mspart

"A special prosecutor was assigned" means this is as much a criminal investigation as it is for Trump. President Biden is being investigated to see if he is criminally liable for any of these documents. Else why a special prosecutor? mspart

McCarthy said it best. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mccarthy-fbi-briefing-swalwell-troubling-wouldnt-have-him-any-committee House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Thursday defended his decision to keep California Democrats Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff off the House Intelligence Committee – arguing that Schiff "openly lied" about the Russian election interference and a disturbing briefing he received from the FBI on Swalwell. "If you got the briefing I got from the FBI, you wouldn't have Swalwell on any committee," McCarthy said in the press conference after one reporter questioned MCarthy's commitment to allowing Democrats to pick their own committee membership. "And you're going to tell me other Democrats couldn't fill that slot? He cannot get a security clearance in the private sector," McCarthy said. "So would you like to give him a government clearance?" McCarthy noted that in the last Congress, which was controlled by Democrats, leadership kept Swalwell in the committee even after he was red flagged by the FBI. "You're going to tell me there are 200 other Democrats that couldn't fill that slot, but they kept him on it? The only way that they even knew it came forward is when they put to nominate him to the Intel committee. And then the FBI came and told the leadership that he's got a problem, and they kept him on. That jeopardized all of us," McCarthy said. So regarding Swalwell, he is off, Pelosi was warned about him before she assigned him to it. She disregarded the FBI warning and put him on anyway. Really stupid stuff happening here with him being put on. That never should have happened. Answer the questions McCarthy raises for yourself and see where you would go with this issue. mspart

Schiff said he had evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. Did he ever present said evidence? No he did not. Why didn't he? Did he not have the opportunity? Was the timing just not right? He didn't have the evidence, never did. Was just blowing steam. He lied about that to the American public and has continued on that lie up to the present day. It has nothing to do with the alleged incident that Bigbrog may have been dropped on his head. This is all very much substantiated. His reliance on the Steele Dossier for his evidence crumbled before his eyes as it was declared bogus. It was pure political trash purchased by Hillary and the DNC. It is true that the FBI knew it was not evidence but used it in the FISA court to spy on Trump's associates in an effort to spy on him. All in an effort to discredit Trump by saying he colluded with Russians. Don't believe it. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/442944-fbis-steele-story-falls-apart-false-intel-and-media-contacts-were-flagged/ It is important to note that the FBI swore on Oct. 21, 2016, to the FISA judges that Steele’s “reporting has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings” and the FBI has determined him to be “reliable” and was “unaware of any derogatory information pertaining” to their informant, who simultaneously worked for Fusion GPS, the firm paid by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton campaign to find Russian dirt on Trump. That’s a pretty remarkable declaration in Footnote 5 on Page 15 of the FISA application, since Kavalec apparently needed just a single encounter with Steele at State to find one of his key claims about Trump-Russia collusion was blatantly false. Why wasn't it proven by the Ds with the Mueller investigation? Because Mueller showed it didn't happen. Schiff never backed down but never put up his evidence. He had ample opportunity to do so but didn't. You really have to ask yourself why. Why didn't he do it when he said he had the evidence? Because he lied about having evidence. mspart

https://rollcall.com/2023/01/11/house-finds-bipartisan-agreement-on-a-china-focused-committee/ The House Tuesday easily adopted the resolution establishing the Select Committee on Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party. The vote was 365-65, with more than 140 Democrats joining all the Republicans to support the measure. But at least one Democrat also warned against turning the panel into a vehicle of "anti-Asian hate." At least one D was concerned this would become an anti-Asian hate thing. Ok Chicken Little, the sky will fall if we set up a committee. Vote was 365-65, it sounds like 140 Ds did not have that concern, at least not enough to vote no. Bipartisan action the first week. How about that. Everyone should be doing a happy dance. mspart

That is your opinion and you have your right to it. But you have not really addressed this issue. You are running on the assumption of what people have told you that there is nothing to see here, this does not happen, and even if it does, it happens so rarely that it is not of consequence. You are being controlled in the same way you think I am being controlled. So is the data in that article suspect? What is suspect in that article? Is the item from Senator Moran suspect? Did things happen in DC? Are the concerns brought up in the letter to Mayor Bowser valid or not? If not, why not? To me it is simple. A baby is born alive, that life should be saved and all efforts expended for it to continue. It sounds like to me it is not as simple for you. Again, I am not for abortion, but I am not for outright murder more. And that is what this is; Murder. It is so obvious, it is a wonder Ds and like minded people will not see it. To not see it is the same as to say it is pitch black outside in the sunshine. It is a wholesale refusal to recognize reality. https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/the-facts-on-the-born-alive-debate/ In Minnesota, there were 10,177 abortions in the state in 2017 and three resulted in an infant born alive. None survived, according to the report from the state Department of Health. One infant was given “comfort care”; another was given no specific care; and the third had a low APGAR score, a measure of a newborn’s well-being. In other words, one was allowed to die, another was not given any care to survive so, it was allowed to die, and a third had a low score and it was allowed to die. mspart

Kermit Gosnell. Look him up. It was happening. This bill would not stop a monster like him but that is what this is attempting to codify and stop. https://www.moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2022/4/sen-moran-joins-colleagues-to-demand-investigation-into-deaths-of-five-babies-aborted-in-d-c This happened in Apr 2022. https://lozierinstitute.org/questions-and-answers-on-born-alive-abortion-survivors/ This was updated in Jan 2023, and notes that possibly 10000 late term abortions are conducted each year, abortions where the baby could survive outside the womb. It also notes a DC doctor on tape admitting he would not help a baby survive if born alive after an abortion procedure. This is not a form of control. This is happening and is sickening. The form of control is what selling folks that is not an issue worth getting one's panties in a bunch about. In this case, it happens more than abortion supporters want to confirm. mspart

Is that really the question? What ever happened to "even if we only save one life, it is worth it"? The Ds almost all voted no on this as they are so myopic they see this as an affront to abortion rights. It has nothing to do with abortion rights. It has everything to do with an alive baby's rights. The child is no longer " part of the mother's body" so that cannot be an argument here. The bill does not prevent abortion, it just prevents killing a child born alive, even if it is born alive due to a botched abortion attempt. Is life sacred or is it not? Apparently the D's do not feel it is sacred if their vote means anything. Kill it at 15 weeks, kill it at 40 weeks, kill it after it is born alive. Very sick state of affairs on the D side. mspart

Just read that article. Hope is low for American GR. That was tough reading. Very depressing. Why would USAW want to destroy GR wrestling? mspart

Well, the House session got started rough, but at least 2 bills have been passed out of the chamber. 1. Bill to remove a majority of the IRS funding of $80 Billion that was in the Inflation Bill/Law. Biden is against this. https://freebeacon.com/politics/house-republicans-vote-to-cancel-bidens-billion-dollar-irs-funding/ House Republicans, in the first act of their tenure in the majority, voted on Monday to rescind nearly $71 billion of the $80 billion that the previously Democratic-controlled Congress allocated to the IRS through the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. This is largely symbolic. Senate won't pass and Biden will surely veto if the Senate passes it. No way to override a veto. R's say the funding is to add IRS agents, enough to double the current payroll. D's say this shows Rs want to allow the rick to get away with cheating on taxes. Do you notice that the D's response does not even respond to the Rs case? Very interesting really. 2. House passes Born Alive Act. This bill says that if a baby is brought out of the uterus alive, it must be kept alive by all means available to medical staff. In other words, this is a bill to prevent a botched abortion that produces a live baby, from then after birth, killing the baby. This seems rather straightforward. Yet Ds are reacting hysterically and making zero sense. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/born-alive-act-pelosi-schumer-melt-down-new-bill-care-babies-born-abortion Senior Democratic lawmakers took to Twitter shortly after the House passed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which requires doctors to provide care for infants born alive after a failed abortion, to criticize the Republicans who supported the "extreme" bill. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, and Vice President Kamala Harris were among those who responded. "Today, instead of joining Democrats to condemn all political violence, [House Republicans] chose to push their extreme anti-choice agenda," Pelosi tweeted Wednesday. She added, "Democrats believe everyone deserves the freedom to access reproductive health services – without fear of violence, intimidation or harassment." "Democrats will always defend reproductive freedoms against extreme Republicans who disrespect a woman’s right to choose the size and timing of her family," she said. And, "These are serious, personal decisions that must be made by women guided by faith, physician and family — not by politicians." Schumer, who did not vote on the bill as he is a senator, responded similarly. "The MAGA Republican-controlled House is putting on display their extreme views on women’s health with legislation that does not even have the support of the American people," he wrote. The vice president also made her opinion known. "House Republicans passed an extreme bill today that will further jeopardize the right to reproductive health care in our country," Harris tweeted. "This is yet another attempt by Republican legislators to control women's bodies." The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act says any infant born alive following an abortion attempt or that survives the abortion is a "legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States." A bit of hysteria that has nothing to do with the purpose of the bill. The abortion takes place yet the baby lives. So now we have an alive human being out of the body of the mother. What does this have to do with controlling women's bodies? Nothing. It is now a matter of an alive human being being cared for and his/her body and right to live. What this does show is the utter lack of concern for the now born baby on the part of the Ds. This is a rational and right thinking bill that prohibits the murdering of a human being, either by direct action or neglect. I find it amazing that Ds want the ability to murder a child after it is born. It is now alive by all definitions and they want the baby to be murdered after surviving a horrific procedure designed to kill it. They have always been about in utero, it is just a mass of cells. Once out of the womb, it is a person. Now they are trying to redefine this as an afront to women's rights etc. I find this abhorrent. I do not agree with abortion in general. I can see some reasons for it. I think a 12-15 week time to have an abortion as being rational maybe as a matter of law. This is pretty standard in the developed world. But this is not a 12-15 week fetus, this is about out of the womb alive babies that they still want to be able to kill. All but 2 democrats said NO to this bill in the vote. Horrendous. Really too tough to stomach how depraved these people have become. Again, no doubt this is a largely symbolic move by the House Rs, because the Senate will never pass this and Biden will not sign it. This very much shows Ds as the party of death. Their whole rationale on abortion has changed over the years from we want the mother to kill the baby before it has really formed to wanting the mother to be able to kill the baby up to birth. But after birth? That has always been sacrosanct that a baby born alive should be cared for. These D's, the whole lot of them except for 2, want the baby to be killed after it is born alive. It doesn't matter than the medical procedure was designed to kill them, they are now out of the womb and alive and that completely changes the calculus. Not for the Ds it doesn't. My point of bringing both of these to your attention is that the complaints of the Ds does not even remotely address the intent of the bills. They go on some rant that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Whatever happened to logic and reason? A dumb question these days I know. mspart

Yeah, he looked quite healthy these last few years. Touring and touring and looking healthy. I am really sorry to hear about his passing. He was one of the greats of our era. Very sad really. mspart

At the end, like the last second, one of the bears head comes up like "what the heck!!!" How do I get outta here? I'm guessing it was the bear on the left. With the way the bear on the right kept backing up, I was thinking lefty would prevail. But he took it just a bit too far and found out who's the boss. mspart

Yeah, sounds like it. NFL is tough even for college football players to make it into, much less college wrestlers. mspart

He just made a mistake. All forgiveable. Except he was targeted because of his position on the Intelligence Committee. He should have been removed by Pelosi at the very least. Now he is being removed, and rightfully so, by McCarthy. mspart

I don't see him getting THAT fight this year. Next year maybe. But there are a lot of dues to pay. Cejudo didn't get there for 5 years. Really tough to see how this could be done. mspart

May I just say that his last name is just killer!! mspart

This! mspart

Perhaps. Does anyone in Congress deserve to be on the Intelligence Committee anyway? But indeed, what goes around comes around. mspart

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mccarthy-expected-3-democrats-off-house-committees/story?id=96344389 McCarthy expected to keep 3 Democrats off House committees His targets are Reps. Ilhan Omar, Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell. Speaker Kevin McCarthy and leading Republicans are expected to soon make good on a vow to keep three Democrats from seats on influential committees in the new House. McCarthy's focus is Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, who has served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, as well as Reps. Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell, two California lawmakers who have served on the House Intelligence Committee. "Speaker McCarthy confirms that Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, and Ilhan Omar are getting kicked off the Intel and Foreign Affairs Committees. Promises made. Promises kept!" Rep. Troy Nehls, a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, tweeted on Tuesday. ... House Majority Leader Steve Scalise was asked during a press conference on Tuesday what the process would be for stripping members of their assignments and said no one had yet been assigned to committees. But he suggested removals were a new standard first set by Democrats. "As we see what comes out, the Democrats set a precedent that we urged them strongly not to go down last Congress," Scalise said. "They decided that they were going to break the precedent that had been in place for over 200 years and remove members of the opposing party that our party selected to be on committees," he continued. "And so that was a practice they set and so, obviously, we're going to be looking very closely at who they appoint. They haven't appointed anybody yet to committees, but we're gonna see if they do." ... McCarthy has accused Schiff of lying to the public during references to a disputed dossier that claimed to outline links between former President Donald Trump's 2016 campaign and Russia. McCarthy has also called Swalwell a "national security threat" for Swalwell's reported run-ins with an alleged Chinese spy, stating there's no way he should be allowed to serve on the committee. ... Separately, McCarthy's criticized Omar over what he described as her "repeated antisemitic and anti-American remarks." Let's see. Schiff has touted the Steele Dossier as truth even after it was completely debunked. Off the Intelligence Committee. Swalwell slept with a Chinese spy. Off the Intelligence Committee. Omar has repeatedly made anti-Semitic comments. Off the Foreign Affairs Committee. These actions should have been taken by Pelosi on the last two if nothing else, but she didn't. Schiff is a maybe from a Pelosi point of view, but the other two should have been no brainers. mspart