scourge165

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).

I mean...RBY is going for his 3 title. SeaBass never won one. Sure, he beat him in 2020. Didn't Starocci lose to Kemerer in '21 in the B1G finals? So, hypothetically, that NCAA had been cancelled...and Starr won two more while Kemerer lost the following years at another weight, would you be arguing that Kemerer was a better Wrestler because of one match? SeaBass is great, but...he's not in the same league as RBY as a College Wrestler. Your greatness is determined in March at ONE 3 day event...that's it.

Good. I think we'd avoid a lot of the petty and performative politics, the histrionics on both sides. We should do this with more things IMO. Put this would put the power in the hands of the people, out of the politicians and it'd take one issue off the table that the political parties use to fundraise, so I don't anticipate it happening. Same thing that should be done with weed in my opinion. Or whatever policy that's simplistic enough to be dealt with via a yes or a no.

Well, that's just you projecting then. I never assigned a value to her life. That's not my place and I don't know anything about her. I was pointing out the conflicting positions. I don't know what your Niece's struggles are. Has she lived her life bedridden and unaware of what's going on? It's actually not my business. That's more the point I was going for. You made the statement that in the particular case I mentioned, you didn't think that a politician should have a say. That it should be between the Doctor and the parents. Then you seem to change that for the "stupid and selfish." How do you propose we legislate that? Either politicians have a say or the parents/Doctors have the final say.

YES! Oh...I cannot remember who this was. It shouldn't be hard to find...but I'm going off memory. I THOUGHT it was a future teammate and then instead of those two wresting, Askren wrestled LeVesseur. I want to say it was a kid named Tidwell when they were Juniors? It COULD have been that Jacob Shlottke. I thought he was a 140/145 when Levesseur was a 152. I remember we saw them and they moved him (and all their top kids all over the place almost hunting losses...which almost never happened to Apple Valley back then). But I do remember Levesseur kinda dominating Askren at the Christmas Tournament(which is where I believe this took place).

Yes. Strange how he was still an active member of the team with no plans to transfer until they brought in Lamont...and then he transferred. This was all about Lamont and hurt feelings. And it's weird because Burwick should be beating him by this point(I don't have much faith in guys who spend the off-season Wrestling Greco improving in Folkstyle). But it's over. You can find a new boogeyman and I guess you guys can accuse your own school of lying now since...they came out and said the SAME thing we've been saying on here for a very-very long time.

Dude...are you following what's going on or what happened AT ALL? Nebraska basically just came out and said there was nothing Wisconsin could do. They supported his effort to transfer. They said they did not properly inform him of the date by which he had to enter the portal. Nebraska itself said there was no possibility for a "No Participation Opportunity," waiver. Do you really NOT understand what that means? I'll break it down for you. Lets say Stanford would have cut Wrestling after Griffith won it in '21. Well...obviously he'd look to transfer, right? NOW the Athletic Department could have signed off on that saying, "there is NOT an opportunity for him to compete because...we don't have a Wrestling program." Now, luckily they do still have one, it's great for the sport. But do you...seriously not understand even Nebraska at this point is basically saying it wasn't on Wisconsin(and CERTAINLY not on Bono...that's just asinine).

Yeah, they really didn't. Had had an opportunity to compete. AGAIN, it'd would have taken the UW administration to have lied in order to sign a waiver to allow him Wrestle for another team...which would have led to questions about WHY he was no longer ABLE to compete in his sport. And Wisconsin's answer would have been.....what? He didn't want to compete with the guy they recruited. That is not losing an opportunity to compete. I thought he could beat out Lamont, but I get it, in College sports now, it's easier to transfer and take the easier route than to fight through and try and win a spot.

You know what wouldn't be a waste of time? Each state just put it to a referendum. Let the people decide. Should abortion be legal; Yes or No? Should Planned Parenthood be Federally Funded; Yes or No? State referendums can't overrule the Hyde Amendment, so you'd be funding basic health care for women, family planning, etc... This is preliminary polling; https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/ And then they voted in Kansas and it went from 49 to 49 to overwhelming voter turnout(good thing, right?) and it was a landslide in favor pro-choice. What are we doing here? Why can't we deal with some of these fundamental issues via referendums?

I don't take it as anything against my Cousin. The Child was literally NOT viable. It did not look like a human child. It was horrific. She didn't just make a choice that this child would be too much trouble or that she didn't want to deal with the hassle. She was told the child would be a still born. That it was born alive was a fluke of monumental proportions. It was under 2 pounds, it was blind...it did not have 10 fingers and 10 toes. See, now THIS is where I agree with you; And this is where YOU don't agree with YOU. This two comments...which come one after another are at direct odds with each other. It kinda feels like you think people who share your beliefs should have politicians stay out of their decisions between a Doctor and the Patient, but the "stupid and selfish" ones should not.

Ok...so what is the child is born with horrific birth defects and they're not going to make it? Do they intubate? Try and keep them alive as long as humanly possible? My Cousin...4 kids at the time, had her 5th. About 6 months in found it it wasn't viable. There was a CHANCE it would be born alive, but it was NOT in good shape. She had the option of aborting it, she chose not to, gave birth, it was alive and they asked if they wanted to put it on a ventilator, etc... My Cousin said no because it was just cruel. I don't recall what exactly the disorder was, but it had an organ on the outside, it had certain parts of his body only partially developed and it was in agony. But they COULD have kept it alive for a few weeks maybe. Is THAT what this bill advocates? Why are they so concerned with dictating what a Doctor and a Mother choose to do?

Well, Lee's not a 4-timer, but I'll assume he is. I also will only compare Dake to Lee in College. I'll go with Dake...by a wide margin(margins get pretty slim in such rarified air)...but winning it at '41, '49, '57, '65 and some of the guys he beat along the way...it's just more impressive to me. I'm not sure I'd take Lee over Yianni. Both have Won Titles with torn ACLs. Yianni has a Silver Medal in Freestyle. Pretty big accomplishment. 2 losses...one to Gomez, one to a guy who played 2,3,4,5. So...pretty good Wrestler.

Ahh...is that funny? This has been over ad nauseum. It's not Bono's call. It was the Athletic Departments. They supported allowing him wrestling. They couldn't sign a sheet that said he was not provided the opportunity as he CLEARLY was. He choose to leave because they recruited Lamont. And he choose to not educate himself on the rules with regard to transferring. Now, the Badger came out and very clearly said, "we did not inform him when he had to transfer by," in an effort to support his appeal. Ignorance of the rules didn't work. And then I'm sure Rivera and Clark after Lamont probably contributed to his decision. But recruiting a transfer with a more successful resume does not equate to a lack of opportunity. So he could be wearing a Neb, Wisconsin or NDST logo, it doesn't change the facts. It's entirely up to the NCAA at this point. There was nothing else Wisconsin could have done other than lie and say Burwick had absolutely no opportunity at Wisconsin...which was obviously NOT the case.

It is not. That's objectively false. It was NEVER up to Bono.

Right, that makes sense. But in state or out of state, it doesn't impact the 9.9. For instance, if PSU has 20 guys from Penn on Scholarship from in State, it's not like they could only have 10 if they were out of state(for the sake of argument, it's exactly twice as much to go to PSU for an out of state athlete). The 9.9 is just an NCAA rule. How the school comes up with it or how they navigate it is entirely up to them...I believe. MAYBE the conference in the case of the B1G.

LOL...I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious? Is this a joke about the people who think they wrestle better stoned or did someone seriously say this!

That's not a joke. I had teammates who used to come into the practice room SOOO paranoid and absolutely WREEKING of weed. I...would have, but I didn't like it. But the funniest part(other than them thinking they were fooling anyone) was...they wrestled their asses off. They were like cats in a burlap sack...just all practice. One of them was one of those dumb-smart guys. A math major who'd wonder aloud "how do fans work." Anyway, his explanation was "it turned his brain off when he wrestled." And that actually made some sense to me. One of the biggest problems you have is getting guys to shoot and commit to shots. Well...he shot like a M1 Thompson when he was high. Now...we can go back to shitting on Illinois!

That's what I always believed...but I suppose it's possible individual schools handle it differently. Particularly when Wrestling was the redheaded step child and it was dying a slow, painful death. Seems to have regained a little steam with the MMA tie in and the sport growing in popularity.

That was my understanding. A scholarship was a scholarship. It didn't cost the Wrestling program more to take a kid from out of state than it did in-state. There were guys we lost because we didn't have reciprocity and we only offered partials, but it didn't cost US more to give them scholarships. But I was a student...so I don't know if that's the norm or if it's different from program to program perhaps, conference to conference.

Can someone explain this to me though? How is the school saving money? I can see how the student would be. Say you get 50%...does it really matter to the program or the school from their end? Wouldn't it matter more for the athlete who's still got to pay that 50%? Obviously most Wrestlers aren't getting 100% full rides. Those are...very rare. I remember a couple of kids on my team being pretty excited when they qualified for in-state(IIRC, it was 2 years after establishing residency). The Athletic Dept was pretty good at working with them and helping in that regard from what I understand...but I don't quite get how it helps the program? It's not like they pay for the scholarship, right? They're not paying 40,000$ to the school if a kid is on full scholarship...? Looks like everyone is pretty much in agreement on this thread, so tell me what I'm getting wrong here? Obviously it's something.