fishbane

I am not sure of the details of the agreement with the USA and the Salvador. I had heard that the US paid them $6million to house 300 prisoners for 1 year. Has the money been paid? Does the US owe $6M whether they send 300 inmates or 0? Or is the Salvador sending them a monthly bill based on how many of our inmates they are currently housing? My point is there might not bill with a specific charge for Abrego Garcia that the US could chose not to pay. If there is then I think we should stop payments for him and continuing to pay for him to be housed there would violate the judge's order, but if the deal was $6M for up to 300 prisoners for a year we are kind of screwed. We could try sending a 301st prisoner since in our mind we aren't paying for Abrego Garcia, but if they refuse to take the new prisoner without additional payment what do you do?

This topic is regarding the IRS re-evaluating their non-profit status. It is not related to the grant money. Behaviour certainly has consequences and on a private college campus those consequences are up to the institute's administration. This is similar to your example with RV potentially being disciplined by his employer for his words/actions at work.

Who won that fight?

I don't get it either. 24-1 with 4 falls. Who did he lose to that year? I also don't get the votes for the Iowa guys. Neither were undefeated and neither won a Big Ten title either.

My understanding is that there aren't terrorist activities going on at Harvard. What pro-terrorist activities are happening at Harvard specifically? A conservative or liberal lean to an organization is not a reason for the IRS to treat them differently. This was a big issue years ago under Obama when it was alleged that the IRS gave greater scrutiny to conservative non-profits. It would similarly be wrong now for the IRS to give greater scrutiny to liberal colleges and universities.

I think it is only criminal to provide material support to such a group. This discussion makes me think of that Russian-American lady who was imprisoned in Russia on treason charges because she had made a ~$50 donation to an American non-profit that was providing humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Such a thing is not illegal in the US. I don't know about your Viet Cong example specifically, but food and pleasantries sound like humanitarian aid. I mean feeding the military directly probably is, but I don't know if that was the intended destination. I don't think Harvard or the student protestors are in general providing material support to Hamas. There aren't doing a weapons drive to send to Gaza. If there are some individuals providing material support then I think the government should charge them with a crime and present the evidence rather than attempting to change the tax designation of Harvard, which makes very little sense.

I believe it's that he says he is not affiliated with MS13.

I couldn't find a season fall total for Ray Miller either. The ASU record book has him with 24 career falls. He is not in the top 20 for single season falls which puts an upper limit on any season as 11. Undefeated wrestlers: Henson 34-0, 11 falls Miller 29-0, <=11 falls Holman 29-0 <=11 falls Terkay 41-0 25 falls.

I could not find how many falls Holman had in 1993, but he was not in the top 15 in single season falls in the Ohio State record book. This would put an upper limit on his falls as 11. Holman had 11 or fewer falls this season.

I found his career record as 122-14. This would make his pin rate 47.1%. Of greater relevance to this question is that he had 25 pins his senior year. That would make his pin rate 61% in the 1992-93 season.

I suspect that wrestling has a conservative lean. If 77% of USAW staff identified as "conservative" or "very conservative" would you be okay with revoking its non-profit status. I am sure a majority of staff at the Heritage Foundation would identify as conservative or very conservative. Should their non-profit status be yanked?

What kind of support are we talking here? Like they are sending funds or weapons to terrorists? Or is it just word?

I'm not reading it with that formatting.

That seems unlikely. PSU wrestled duals against Drexel and Lehigh and failed to shut out either individually. Also Lehigh's 125 reversed a result from that dual at the NCAA tournament.

My understanding is that there is more academic flexibility at UNC which gives athletes the option of taking paper classes. This could be a potential selling point for recruits, possibly helped him land AJ Ferrari.

Yeah that makes sense. I was trying to figure out if your college career overlapped the weight changes. I thought maybe it was 158-167-167-157. That would have been a pretty extreme cut as a senior. The year before the change there was a near year long 7lb allowance so it would have been like dropping to 157 from 174. Dropping one weight is difficult enough.

Isn't this impossible? The old weights were 150, 158, 167, 177. Then they changed to 157, 165, 174, 184. You've selected a new weight your first year then an old weight the next two and a new weight your last season. 35 years ago it would have been the old weights. So you probably had an extra pound - 158.

Lol that claim stood out to me when they made it. It made me think it can't be true. I couldn't find anything about it immediately after except news sources quoting DOGE.

I hope the 10% reciprocal tarriff Trump put on Heard and McDonald islands puts an end to the extortion we've been experiencing at their hands!

Lolol. Musk stuggles with the consequences of his actions... m2-res_480p.mp4

Elon Musk does this kind of thing all the time. He presents a concrete number which could mean something of consequence, but the actual relevant number is some small part of the number he shows so you don't really know. He surely has at least some estimate for the smaller relevant part, but doesn't give it. Why would he do such a thing? Here he has definitive number on the numbers of SSNs issued to non-citizens. He then says that some of those people they found registered to vote. Why not say the actual number registered to vote? He says some of those registered to vote have indeed voted. He doesn't say how many of them voted or what elections they found that they had voted in. Why wouldn't he give that number? It really is the most important number. How many of these non-citizens issued SSNs by the last administration voted in the last presidential election? Could it be that the number that actually voted is inconsequentially small? Presenting the larger number and saying some of them voted makes it seem like it could be a huge problem. Musk and DOGE have used this tactic before. With the SSA database they have on numerous occasions noted the number of individuals with DOBs over 120 years ago that are not marked as deceased in the system. They quote a huge number and say that it is a massive problem. Why don't they ever say the number of 120+ year olds receiving benefits? Could it be that none are actually receiving payments from the program? Quoting the large number of alive 120 year old could mean there is a huge problem and justify their departments work. Musk has done this with Tesla products. When unveiling the Tesla semi Musk quoted the range of vehicle and the overall weight which seemed impressive. The website says "300-500mi of range" when "Fully Loaded at 82k lbs Gross Combination Weight." That is an impressive range and a heavy load, but how much of it is cargo? They don't say. How much does the semi weigh without the trailer? They don't say that either. The impressive range is likely possibly through an extremely large and extremely heavy battery meaning that a small fraction of the 82,000lbs is cargo. Why not give the actual number everyone wants to hear? People interested in voter fraud want to know how many of those non-citizens voted in federal elections. People interested in social security fraud want to know how many 120+ year olds are being paid by the system. People interested in using the telsa semi want to know how much cargo they can transport with that 300-500mi range. The actual numbers don't send the message he wants being sent.

What money are you talking about?

Lol not sure what you mean. The original theory was that the country was going to Democrat forever in twenty years. The revised theory is that he was off by 20 years. I reckon he must mean yhe US will be Democrat forever in 40 years because 20 years the other direction would could say is wrong right now. I think the original theory was dubious to start and full of logical holes.

So it happened now instead of 20 years from now? Wouldn't that mean the country is _now_ Democrat forever. Have you considered the possibility that you were just wrong altogether?

At least Sanderson, Long, Conaway, and Lawson were teammates with Taylor.