whaletail

The repetitiveness made me drop it after ~400 pages.

57 - Davino over Lee 65 - Jax over Bassett 74 - Jayden James over Carr 86 - Valencia over Haines 97 - Brooks over Snyder H - Ross over Hendrickson I'm most looking forward to 65kg, and even after seeing Bo beat Real pretty decisively last night, I'm picking Jax. Bo's greatest strength, his constant offense, gives Jax exactly what he's looking for. Constant scoring opportunities. Unless Bo's just too big and strong for Jax, which seems unlikely given Jax' potential growth, I think Marcus will remain Jax' biggest threat. As a Jax fan, I hope he's on the other side of the bracket, with Seidel to deal with. Assuming MM remains uninterested in wrestling freestyle, or competes mostly to avoid dissappointing those closest to him, Jayden James winning the 74kg Trials shouldn't shock anyone. He'll spend the next two years improving at NLWC, and unless he outgrows 74kg, I think he'll medal at Worlds next year, and own the weight domestically in 2028. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he's the clear favorite for gold in the run-up to LA 2028.

I know it's crazy to even write this, but I think Bo can beat the Iranian. The underhook will slow him down a little, for sure, but for 6 minutes?

Not only that, Bo was sniping him with outside shots, getting in, and scoring in ways I would've thought favored Woods. Bo didn't necessarily beat him at his own game, but he didn't just overwhelm with pace. Excepting the late takedown he gave up, I thought he looked as good a technician, and I didn't expect that. As an aside, did anyone else think Real looked a weight class smaller? He looked like a big 61 to me, with Bo much taller, and a bit more filled out. Unless Real reinvents himself, makes Bo respect his offense, Bassett's going to end match 2 early.

Another persuasive argument from intermat's premiere Republicuck.

I'll watch the video - and respond - as soon as I can.

You're like an Fox News has been America's dominant political media presence for two decades. And they have been much more aggressively partisan than their supposed left wing peers, MSNBC included. The number of ex-Fox News employees in Trump's current administration is unprecedented, and I'm not even sure whether Hegseth is the most ridiculous example. No wonder the dipshit can't even begin to do his job (his unsecured text chats during the Iran missile strike being the most egregious) Regarding the examples of "MSM corruption" cited in this thread, only the 60 Minutes edit is even suggestive of left wing media partisanship, and I haven't watched that video yet. I'll comment on it more definitively this afternoon. As mentioned previously, the ABC and CBS settlements actually illustrate this administration's concerted effort to silence its critics however possible. The underlying facts of neither case are indicative of media partisanship, and despite your claims to the contrary, context matters. Meanwhile, the Dominion v. Fox News defamation trial actually exposed the exact sort of corruption you mention. While consistently, and continually claiming on-air that Biden stole the 2020 election, pundits including Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson and Jesse Whatever (among others) acknowledged in emails that they knew such claims were patently false. They knew Trump's stolen election claims were complete bullsh!t, and constantly mocked him in emails to each other, while unashamedly lying to the American public every night. I do agree that individual investigative journalists are almost universally left leaning, but they have no incentive to lie in the manner you claim. Not only are the legal teams at CNN, NYT et al. extremely cautious, their owners certainly aren't left leaning. Finally, the American public seems to be much more centrist than left leaning, with at least 30-40% are firmly on the right. Given those demographics, why would any media outlet act against its own interests in the manner you claim?

You're right we lost. But at least we're not welcoming our own ruination. When they shovel sh^t down all of our throats, at least we're not trying to convince ourselves it's chocolate. You're covered in sh!t, convinced you're on their team.

So the merger was just background noise, eh? Nothing to see there? All you're proving is that Trump and his cronies are using the government to try and silence anyone and anything they disagree with. I'm not sure why you're okay with being sh&t on by your own government like a battered wife, but jesus christ man, gain some self respect.

Interviews are always edited, and I've never seen any evidence that 60 minutes edited hers to improve her political outlook. If you can provide credible evidence suggesting otherwise, please post a link, but the above isn't it.

Context matters. CBS settled b/c Trump personally intervened to block their merger. As soon as they settled, he allowed it to go through. His defamation claim was considered spurious by every credible legal pundit I've heard from, and was obviously an attempt to subvert free speech. Also, did he win the ABC case or settle? Regardless, George Stephenopoulos calling him a rapist (instead of someone found civilly liable for rape, isn't exactly continually and maliciously falsifying reports for political advantage. It's a technicality. But guess who Trump isn't suing, because he knows they can't be bought or bullied? The NYT reporters, authors of Lucky Loser, who forensically analyzed his tax records, then exposed him as the snivelling dipshit/liar he's always been. They destroyed the fat f*ck, with receipts, and not a peep in response.

Although she wrong about the ability for the vaccinated indivuals to spread covid, Maddow wasn't maliciously falsifying anything for political advantage. Vaccinated people are overwhelmingly less likely to become infected, or pass on covid, than the invaccinated. She didn't fully understand the science, and shouldn't have spoken with such certainty, but exhorting viewers to get vaccinated is helpful, not malicious. Nonetheless, as a publicly progressive pundit, she needs to be above reproach, and I hope she corrected her mistake in a later broadcast.

Please enlighten me.

He wasn't calling you a Nazi, moron. He cited the circumstances surrounding Anne Frank's death to highlight the fact that one needn't directly murder someone to be responsible for their death.

What news sources, other than maybe Fox News (see Dimension v. Fox News for an egregious example), have been shown to continually and maliciously falsify their reports for a political advantage?