scourge165

I'd HATE to ref a match like this. In my BRIEF time as a HS ref, I remember just a few hundred people in a "big" rivalry duel and I dreaded calling shit. PSU fans(or Iowa at CHA) are just ruthless! I don't think the home crowd EVER thinks the other guy is in a "potentially dangerous" situation or NOT stalling!

Right...he wrestled as a true Freshmen. I'm not following the difference. A Redshirt is a Redshirt. If you're a True Freshmen or if you're a Soph.

Yup! Lee was a wuss!

I don't believe that'd burn his RS. He's barely got 5 matches, much less 5 events. I know there's some question about Haines wrestling as THAT'D burn his RS, but Ayala?

Woods faded in the 3rd last time I saw him(which...is not like him). It'll be interesting to see if Bartlett can get his shot when he needs it late(assuming not tilts).

What happened to Ayala? He can't Wrestle? Because he seems like he'd be the pretty clear favorite and...then this is self explanatory.

I don't know, kinda subjective. It's certainly not a rare thing.

I think that's...quite a stretch. Again, Burwick had ZERO plans to transfer until Lamont was brought in. You don't set up a place to live for the next year(lease and all) if you're planning on leaving. Wisconsin tried to help Burwick as much as they could by conceding they hadn't told him what the transfer dates were(though most of the kids knew what it was). You'd think the kid who was planning the whole time and looking into it...he MIGHT have looked into and made sure he knew the rules. Instead, he wasn't even close. His waiver was granted because he transferred late. This is how it's been handled in every other case. You miss the deadline, you have to sit out the first semester. It's that simple. This wasn't a unique case other than Manning...apparently unaware of the rule, tried calling out Bono when he had literally NOTHING to do with it at that point.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think Hamiti actually heard it and then attacked because he thought he had the 1. I don't know why UW didn't challenge that as it would have put Hamiti on his feet and wiped off the riding time not that it ended up mattering, but it felt like the longer Hamiti had, the better the chances he was gonna get a TD and NF. I do agree though, Hamiti was penalized for his quick re-shot. Hamiti needs to find a way to create his own offense rather than get into scrambles. He reminds me a bit of Henning. Not a ton of offense on his feet(vs elite guys), but he was one of the first guys who really used others shots to pass the ankle and then come out and score on their shot. Still should have beaten that Paulson but the ref stopped it when he was coming out the back. The early days of that particularly type of scramble. At least on a regular basis. I've seen Gerry Abas and Kolat pull it out(looking back in videos) but he kinda perfected scoring off it.

Oh...I dislike the Brands and it's impossible to not respect the passion they have for the sport and the way they wrestled, the way they coach. I will say look at Hillger and look at Cass. Both athletic and "undersized" HWTs coming in. I'd say Hillger was the more athletic guy. Not sure I'd say more talented because that's too vague, but...well, I guess athletically gifted is good enough. Wrestling is a sport where you can take that and work your way to being great...which brings me to the difference between these two. Cass went, remade his body, went from basically Hillger now to a guy who looks like he's got Matt Brown(the '74 for PSU) type build, just 60 pounds heavier...while Hillger, who was an awesome athlete at ~225 was your typical tweener. He went and ate 12,000 calories a day and just put on a gut. So...I guess it's nice he doesn't get turned more now, but he's lost a lot of his quickness. So I don't know if Hillger was oiled up or if he just sweats like a guy who went from 220 to 260 and it appears it's shown up all as a half barrel in his belly. Look at Davidson from NU? It'd be great if everyone was 6'5 and could weigh 270 at HWT like Mason Parris, but I don't see how adding all that bad weight has helped him.

Yeah, I guess it did. What ARE you talking about? What are you talking about? If the Badgers don't recruit Lamont, Burwick is Wrestling 133 for them right now. "Will chalk it up to one too many." I'd assumed you were talking about his reasons for transferring. If you're not, then you are correct, it went over my head.

Yes...that is what he said when he was at Nebraska and they were arguing to the NCAA that it was Wisconsin's fault for not informing him of the May 6th deadline to transfer. Edit-Which...they admitted they had failed to do. Still, athletes who are looking to transfer are generally doing things that would suggest they plan to move(like...move or leave the school you're at after the Winter Semester). He was still at Madison, still enrolled, still in the room...until Lamont. So why do YOU think if he was trying to get a waiver from the NCAA and he missed the window to transfer after they recruited another Wrestler...that he'd say, "well, it's there fault I didn't get my transfer in on time, I was always planning on transferring?" Don't you think maybe that could be so he could put the onus on UW and to try and get his appeal to go through? Or do you think that means he was planning on transferring despite all evidence to the contrary? I can't read minds, I can only look at actions. His actions didn't seem to lineup. And for the record, I kinda get why he'd be upset about them recruiting a kid for ONE year who at best is a marginal upgrade when he has 3 years left. But we've seen how brutal the B1G is. I wouldn't have recruited Woods if I was Iowa(or at least I'd have tried to communicate with Henson who...I think is actually at '33 now).

LOL..."why aren't they raiding his house." The DOJ negotiated for Months. Trump claimed he could declassify a document just by thinking it! The FBI went into Mar-a-Lago dressed up as employees in an attempt to minimize their exposure. Trump announced it. He wanted to play the victim. Biden on the other hand admitted his mistakes, he's not trying to obstruct. It's a false equivalency, but of course, nobody has ever been treated as badly as Trump!

They're gonna ban sodomy? What the hell are the Catholic school kids gonna do for their "loophole?" I guess this'll be exclusive to same sex, huh? I feel pretty good there'd be enough GOP support to to legalize that. I mean...what would happen to Linsey's little lady bugs!

It's all about facts not feelings until you want to stick to the facts...then it's feelings. What can ya do! I do find it kinda strange he responded to a post that wasn't even directed toward him, but rather another poster. The following statement was made(NOT by "Nailbender); I merely responded with what was ACTUALLY in the Bill. It's true, it didn't "only" allow 1st trimester abortions. It also allowed for those cases that our "esteemed" Congressmen like Jim Jordan called a hoax, ie, when the health of the mother or child is in danger. Imagine how much more could be accomplished if we weren't constantly trying to take legislation, listen to one side's talking points and then just repeated those?

There's just so much. If you were somehow able to dissociate the political component of this and they weren't so afraid, that phone call to the GA Sec of State should have been enough in and of itself. 'Just fine me 11,800 votes.' That should have been enough for at least one charge. But the Dems are so scared(and I actually understand this) to charge him as the talking point will invariably become, "they're taking out their political opponent."

I'll take Haines, Kerkvliet, but I think Lamer has a good shot vs Van Ness. That'd be my prediction, BUT...I think Michigan has a punchers chance here. Medley was pretty impressive vs Barnett. I could see 6 here. Pretty much gonna need 6 to get the win. 133-Just too much to ask of Ragusin 6-3 141-Mattin is certainly capable of keeping it to a decision(potential upset, but I love how Barnett's been Wrestling). So 6-6 at this point. 149-Lamer is another guy who's not afraid to pull the trigger. I can see him pulling this out. 9-6 UM 157-Lewan is the favorite, I'm just bullish on Haines, but that'd make it 12-6. 165-Amine is a stud...just doesn't get bonus. 15-6 174-Starocci this is where it gets a little ugly. I could see Starocci getting the tech if PSU they're in danger of losing(even if they're not). But I'll go with the Maj 15-10 184-Brooks another one where I could see Brooks coming out and getting bonus points, but Finesilver's tough. 15-13 197-Yatooma is the type of guy Dean seems to have close matches with. ~7-2. 15-16 HWT-Parris is obviously capable of sealing this for Michigan...if things go about as well as possible. 18-16. 18-16 best case for UM...IMO. 29-7 best case for PSU Could be one helluva duel. Being at home though, it'll be a huge task for UM to knock off PSU(obviously). Should have a better idea where Haines stands after this match.

It's just the dishonesty on this that gets frustrating. The bill would ONLY have allowed for abortions until the fetus was viable...which is usually 22-24 weeks(the first trimester). It ALSO allowed for abortions after viability, but ONLY when "in the good-faith medical judgement of the treating health care provider, the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient's life or health." This abortion 'till birth messaging was bullshit. Reading the pieces of the bill they try and talk around is often helpful. So they did try passing such a bill. Again, needed 60 votes in the Senate. And again, I'll refer you to the referendum in Kansas. Now...you tell me, do YOU believe Kansas is right of Center or Left of Center? https://apnews.com/article/kansas-abortion-vote-recount-e874f56806a9d63b473b24580ad7ea0c

And they still needed 60 votes in the Senate. They also tried passing just a simple law that allowed travel across state lines so as to prevent the punitive laws put in place in Texas or other states that aim to punish people who travel for medical services. They even got GOP support on that one with a handful of Republicans voting for it. Not enough to get 60 in the Senate. Please...spare me about which party went "radical" on this issue.

Ahh...so the things I said AFTER the post were what made you not reply to the post...after? That tracks I tried to respond to each of your points(as I've done again here) without...getting too emotional. I'm sorry you were not capable of doing the same. LOL...and exactly where did I suggest my feelings were hurt? Because I pointed out that you resorted to ad hominem attacks? Yeah, that doesn't hurt my feelings, it shows the level of discourse you're capable of. Ahh..yes. That was the problem. You were SOOO brilliant, I just couldn't understand it! See...now I can see why you think I'm confused. You like to conflate issues, change the subject, attack and mis-direct. I never said any personal decision to have any abortion would be simple. The question of it being legal however should be. "Fine with me." Your answer when I suggested a referendum on the subject. Don't want politicians interfering. You agreed. Now it seems you're conflating wrestling with the decision to have one with the right to have one(or lack thereof) because you're just...so a great human being! No. It doesn't "have" to be. But again, when I suggested a referendum and you said, "fine with me," you believed it'd be what? We'd have 150 million people writing their own 25 point bills in which they believe it should be legal or not? And no, it's just a contradiction. How is this NOT a contradiction? You were all but too happy to say you were glad the decision was made by her, her Doctors and "no interference from politicians." Now you're all but too happy to list off all types of interference from Politicians. Weren't you babbling about red herrings? Mississippi? Who's advocating for an abortion "the day it's due?" The histrionics are strong in this one. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/blog/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-late-term-abortion Now, back on Earth where we're talking about 1st terms(as again, we all know how you hate discussing outliers...and we don't wanna make your head explode). https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/ 61% think it should be legal. 37% illegal. So...seems like they kinda do think it should be legal, right? In KANSAS(the liberal, left leaning, progressive Kansas) they actually did vote on it. ~60/40. https://apnews.com/article/kansas-abortion-vote-recount-e874f56806a9d63b473b24580ad7ea0c So now given that in POLLS Kansas was 49-49, yet during an actual referendum on the subject, it was ~60/40, seems the majority DOES think it should be between a Women and her Doctor...not Jim Jordan and "Nailbender." There are lots of people out there who just love abortion? Even some in elected office? Again...you said something about red herrings? Well, making progress then, aren't we? You're actually thinking for yourself without yammering on about abortions on the day of...because...again, we ALL know how much you dislike the outlier. Hey, just glad I made you think about something. You want ME to stop mentioning her? Repeatedly you chastized me for not reciprocating your sympathy. Numerous times you brought her up. I think what you're most upset about is you realize how ridiculous your persistent pleas to "reciprocate" my "compassion" for a situation that...you again have repeatedly told me turned out very well. So you'll forgive me if I was confused what compassion or sympathy you wanted "reciprocated," for a scenario that by your account, turned out wonderfully. I can understand after my interaction with you that you're too emotional to discuss this issue. I've made it pretty clear. I don't think it's the religious right, I don't think it's the politicians place...I think it's a decision that should be made by the mother. One that again, I'll stand behind and so will the majority of Americans. Yup. I believe I was. Sorry, you just agreed your Niece was none of my business and now you're outraged that I stated as much? You dizzy from talking in circles yet? I don't...picket, I don't donate money, I don't even vote...yeah, I don't care. I don't believe you've ever heard me talk or met me. But I'll err on the rights of the women. Which is ALL I originally did to pull your sting and read your contradictory incoherent ranting. Yeah, but...again, you have kinda said it; Ahh...ok, so this ISN'T you making an inference about how much value I place upon the life of your niece? Gotcha! I didn't say YOU in and of yourself were forcing anything on anyone. I get why you keep making this entirely about YOU after the "if I were King" comments on multiple occasions now, but I've been told we live in a Country with laws And I'm suggesting in that framework that in the first trimester it's up to the women. I understand clearly how this sounds. Not everyone has the resources to care for a child that's going to need to be cared for their entire life. And...wait now, THIS one will shock you...the VAST majority of women who have abortions, they're not married. Meaning they don't have a Husband and they're not in a position to dedicate their life exclusively to caring for a child. Sorry that that "takes the cake" for you, those are just the facts. Yes. We should allow the mother the decision if she's going abort a pregnancy. Again, could have sworn you said you were happy this was a decision made between the Mother and the Doctor without interference by politicians? Now because I've held that same position, you're full of outrage and too emotional to have a coherent discussion? Yeah, that tracks with my experience. I guess then my first suggestion would be...stop? I don't know, I'm thinking outside the box here...lets just see how it works. That's a rather bizarre thing to say. She won't be "my burden." Now are you going to claim you didn't say this in about 3 more posts like you did when you said you didn't believe I thought she had value and then you claimed you never inferred any such thing? I wasn't concerned with her becoming my "burden." I was making a point that it's not a particularly pleasant life growing up as a ward of the state and I'd imagine it's far less so if you've got a disability. Is that a position you'd disagree with? Yeah, I know, you won't answer because you've gotten too emotional about this, but it just a generally bizarre response. "My niece will never be your burden." And this was a paragraph or two AFTER you said you wanted to stop talking about your Niece? Again...I'd refer back to my previous suggestion. Then just stop? I like to think so.

This is just disassociated from reality. Republicans have been running for 50 years on Roe v Wade. That has been one of if not THE most significant issue since the ruling. There is nothing stopping Congress from passing a federal abortion law? Sure there was. Joe Manchin...who repeatedly voted against it. The filibuster. 50 years of the Religious Right running on Roe v Wade and when it gets overturned and the electorate comes and turns what's supposed to be a historic red wave into a red drop, then it's Democrats "playing politics?"

And we're back with another ad hominem. It was an attempt to address each point rather than speaking in vague talking points or personal attacks. Clearly, you're not capable of doing so. It's pretty clear you didn't answer some of the questions because...well...ya didn't have them. Again, you've continually expressed a desire for me to "reciprocate" my sympathies for your happy, loved, well taken care of niece while inferring that I don't believe her life has "value," and when I ask for a clarification on what exactly am I supposed to be offering sympathy for...you turn into a politician caught up in their own bullshit. Just say "no comment at this time." It's easier and not as intellectually dishonest. Or hell, tell me I'm fake news...I don't know, same difference. A little tantrum in lieu of an actual discussion.

Yes...Jim Crow is certainly NOT the extent of State Abusing human rights. Shit, it's not even the latest or most egregious. When you've got the Federal Gov't allowing for forced sterilization with the Family Planning Services Act...in which 25 up to 42% of women of child bearing ages were sterilizedand THAT went into the 1970s, I find it a little...disingenuous to act outraged like we're SO far beyond taking the rights of someone away.

Right...I have two words when ceding individual rights to the states. "Jim Crow."

I didn't suggest you vote directly on every issue. Obviously I don't believe we should throw together a quick referendum on the debt ceiling. That'd be foolish. But on issues such as abortion, marijuana. Straight yes or no issues...or close to it. Sure. Late term abortion is objectionable to most people. So make it simple. First trimester. But your statement still seems like a contradiction. "We don't have to leave it up to everyone to decide for themselves." I'm not sure how you reconcile that with the statement that you don't think Politicians should be involved? Are you just talking about late term abortions? Yes. I know that. The overwhelming majority of people believe it's a women's choice. Of course not. I don't think anyone's actually "pro-abortion." You're killing what could very likely become a baby. And I still don't think it's anyone else's decision to make. It's pretty simple...to me. I'm also not a King. No...it doesn't HAVE to be...but it kinda is. And implying it's not is dishonest...or "dense." Look at the story about the the 10 year old. You had Jim Jordan calling it a lie. Just...no facts, nothing. Just don't like that narrative, must be a lie. That girl had to go to another state to get an abortion. 10 years old. But ok. He looked like the asshole he's become when they arrested the rapist and the story was confirmed. Does ANYONE think it's a good idea when you REALLY think about it to use rape as an exemption? Lets take the 10 year old or the minors who can't legally consent out of it. It's agreed, they should have access. So how about the rest? Is it incumbent upon the women to prove the rape? 6 weeks later, she didn't report it. It was a date rape...she was drugged. Or...MAYBE she wasn't. It's not like there haven't been false allegations. How do you want to prove(or disprove) the veracity of the claim? As I said, I don't know the situation with your niece(and actually stated it's none of my business). I also didn't need sympathy. I used it as an example of a case that would be DIRECTLY impacted by THIS LAW. It was a personal anecdote that knew of that I shared. It didn't happen to me. So I wasn't looking for sympathy. This wasn't my story or my tragedy and I don't know what it feels like to go through that. It was an example of how utterly ridiculous this law is(though not surprising as most of these votes are simply performative at this point). Now, as for me not "reciprocating," you've resorted to ad hominem attacks a few times and now you keep coming back to this. What sympathy would you like? You have stated she's living a full and happy life, her parents love her and she's cared for. What reciprocity would you like? That is what you call a HAPPY ending, no? THEY made that decision and they are happy and fulfilled. So please explain to me what you'd like me to say here? I'm sorry they chose to raise a happy, loving child with some type of disability? My deepest apologies. What an asshole I've been for not being sympathetic that person is alive...? I NEVER once said I did. In fact, I said it was none of my business. That's a recurring theme here. I don't believe it's MY(or your) business. Yeah, but you kinda are. You've made this inference multiple times now. And again, I read this and I wonder why you're asking for me to reciprocate sympathy? Because she wasn't born healthy? That's...genuinely awful. Because your Aunt and Uncle have made a commitment to care for her full-time? Yes, that is admirable. Is that a decision that should be forced on every couple? Should a couple that gets pregnant in their 40s, they shouldn't have the same freedom your family members had? Not everyone is in a position to care for a child that will need care their entire lives...and the costs can easily run up into the millions(which is most often pushed off onto the state and those are NOT often happy lives).