WrestlingRasta

I think part of the process, and it’s been awhile since I read it, is to ‘investigate’ their social media, writings, etc. If there’s any documentation of any support for the war they are ineligible. Something like that. Again it’s been awhile since I read it, and quite possibly has been altered. But the process was along those lines.

I think you need to read all of the comments for full context. I didn't say the russian wrestlers have nothing to do with it. I said they have established a process to determine which athletes are sponsored by or otherwise connected with their military, and those athletes would not be eligible. And I stated I am in agreement with that because those athletes that are not should not be damaged.

Back to the topic at hand, these are the line-ups. Not for nothing, whenever wrestling athletes from Russia are competing, its a hell of a show: Team Sadulaev 57kg: Rakhat Kalzhan (Kaz) 61kg: Abasgadzhi Magomedov 65kg: Dzhambulat Kizinov 70kg: Inalbek Sheriev 79kg: Bolat Sakaev (Kaz) 86kg: Magomed Ramazanov 92kg: Gadzhi Radzhabov (Blr) 125kg: Abdulla Kurbanov Team Sidakov 57kg: Artem Gobaev 61kg: Danil Kharchilava 65kg: Islam Guseynov (Blr) 70kg: Sanzhar Doszhanov (Kaz) 79kg: Gadzhimurad Alikhmaev 86kg: Arslan Bagaev 92kg: Askhab Saadulaev 125kg: Yusup Batyrmursaev (Kaz)

Sorry you feel that way.

You said the Russian people and government are inextricably bound together, and tried to use “reports” as basis for your argument. Further, what civilized countries have done is a plan that will allow those athletes, who have nothing to do with what is going on, the ability to pursue their dreams (you know, that who love life and the pursuit of happiness stuff). While those who either support or receive support from the aggressors will not be able to. The Russian Federation will not participate in the world events. Innocent athletes from the country will. Would you want your individual earned right to compete for a world title taken away because of something Trump and his cronies did….?

I’ve spent time there. I’ve spent time with the people. I’m still friends with many. If you want to think media stories coming out of Russia is full real story, and the Russian people are full behind their Government…… well that is your right, and privilege. I won’t argue with you.

That’s the cut of the thread so far. I bet that’s amazing.

Captain obvious over here

Might wanna check up on current events, 8% inflation was 12 months ago. It’s just a tad lower now. (more from the category of information you won’t get on Hannity and Tucker)

Yes, you can

There’s also been plenty of matches where caution and 1 has been awarded. Did we not learn anything from the Mongolian strip tease?? We can run around and cry and whine anti-American all we want. It might make it easier for us to sleep at night, but what does it do to help for the next time? Or…we can look at what it is, and what we did that we can correct for the next time. Everyone has their own way…

Just to clarify, Are you asking if the investigations turned up the exact same evidence and testimony, from the exact same Republican administration officials, and exact same other Republican officials (that were not in the WH admin)….but he wasn’t a complete and total dipshit every time he had a mic or keyboard in front of him, would he still be indicted? Just want to clarify that’s what you’re asking before answering.

Buuuut….that’s not what you said.

Leaving the mat is not a requisite for fleeing the hold, nor is a warning before a point is given. In the USWOA webinar it discusses three options to evaluate for negative wrestling. The second one categorizes fleeing the hold, and a caution 1. It clearly states that if there is sufficient time in the match a warning can be given first, but if insufficient time remains a caution and one should be offered. It’s important to understand that it goes beyond the black and white reading of the rule book, because the rule book is interpreted into however many different languages. The concept is key, and the concept here as it relates to this match is she was avoiding wrestling, at the very end of the matcha caution and 1 is warranted…..

Actually neither guilty nor not guilty, as it was not a criminal trial. It was a defamation lawsuit, for him saying she was lying and crazy when she claimed he sexually assaulted and raped her in an interview. The jury in the defamation lawsuit had to first answer if sexual assault and rape was proven, because if not, then there’s no grounds for the defamation. They found for sexual assault, but could not find for rape, because they could not prove whether it was just his finger or his penis that he injected into her. But, having found LIABLE for sexual assault, they then found him LIBALE for defamation. As a side note, post verdict the judge explained that the statute for proving rape was very thin and must include a sexual organ, hence not being able to tell if it was just his finger or not disallowed them from being able to find for rape. The judge then explained by all societal norms, rape is precisely what took place. Just wanted to clear up a few details from the trial that you won’t find on Hannity and Tucker.

We'll try it a little clearer: You mentioned "fondled her boobs, or something like that" (which, notably, leaves out the more vile act committed in that incident) You also mentioned 20 or 30 years to come out. BUT--here's the catch-- you only stated having a problem with one of those issues...not the other. So, again, you said what you said. Instead of trying to slippery out of it, admit it, and do better.

I have And Rousey does not have one sinlge boxing match of record.

Rousey is not, nor never was, a pro boxer.

Speaking of the twisting, I too, did not say you said. I brought out that you implied his actions were no big deal (which was sexual assault at a minimum) which is why I used words like "seem" and "apparent". Not going to go back and forth with you on a word play. You said what you said. That's an issue for you to deal with.

I did a step better, I quoted it, so there was no confusion.

You may want to look at series events that took place in between the sexual assault (at minimum) took place, and when the suit was filed.......particularly at a law that was not in place until recently, the passing of which allowed her to sue at the time she did. (Hint, they won't be talking about it on Hannity or Tucker). On a side note....you may also want to look at your apparent stance that it is more okay to sexually assault a woman than it is to come forward within your permissible timeline. Great stuff. MAGA!!

Well played...

nah....I noticed it awhile back talking to a buddy who's currenlty in the international scene, brought it up, noticed an uptick over last couple years. Pipeline through the coach or something like that can't remember exactly what it is.

I wonder if the fact that a man was killed after threatening the President and pulling a weapon on the FBI, and another woman arrested now for threatening to kill the judge in DC......will have any impact on the judge in GA when it comes to arraignment?

In a boxing match, Rhonda Rousey would not hold much of an advantage over any male who has done some boxing training. Striking was absolutley her downfall in mma. Now.....a grappling match....