Wrestleknownothing

I missed that it is missing. I must have gotten distracted with work. If I promise that won't happen again can you paraphrase it for me?

Since you have this in multiple threads I will add my comment about that here too. If the Republicans choose Trump as Speaker of the House it will show they are well and truly broken. The inability to find a Speaker among their 221 members would be the ultimate statement that they are unable to rule.

Not at all. She wasn't wheeled out by the Democrats, she was elected to her position by her constituents, as ridiculous as that was. She was a poster child for term limits and should have resigned long ago.

Electing Trump Speaker of the House would be the ultimate admission of failure by the Republican party. If they cannot find a leader among 221 members they are well and truly broken.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Speaker of the House must be a member of the house.

I think Paniro Johnson was, but he also has legal issues because he was charged with an actual crime.

PSU 197 2012 Morgan McIntosh NQ 2013 Quentin Wright 1st 2014 Morgan McIntosh 7th 2015 Morgan McIntosh 3rd 2016 Morgan McIntosh 2nd 2017 Matt McCutcheon R12 2018 Shakur Rasheed 7th 2019 Bo Nickal 1st 2021 Michael Beard 7th 2022 Max Dean 1st 2023 Max Dean 7th I think I like Bo Nickal in the round robin followed by Wright, McIntosh, Dean, Rasheed, McCutcheon and Beard.

You come up with the most random stuff. Reminiscent of post WWI Germany, my ass. Now we are going from silly to downright dumb. By the way, how were you right in that first post? I am really looking forward to your answer.

Yes. Yes, I can

Insolvency of the Fed is not a thing due to their ability to affect the money supply The Fed has zero problem selling Treasury Bonds. As a matter of fact here is a quote from your article: "a deluge of Treasury issuance this year". And the Fed is not enduring losses. It is the purchasers of the bonds that are incurring the losses. Nope. And, OM God, that seceder link was one of the funniest things I saw today. Thank you for that.

So many errors.

Eating at Buffett's is prohibitively expensive. I just can't see them affording it on an assistant wrestling coach's salary, unless I am vastly underestimating NIL. https://www.reuters.com/business/bidding-tops-123-mln-warren-buffett-charity-lunch-2022-06-17/

My pleasure. It is how I look at the world, so I thought I would share.

If I lived in Singapore I am not sure if I would want a car even without this fee, but with this fee, absolutely not. But it doesn't even need to be a city state as densely packed as Singapore. My son lives in Chicago and does not own a car, and says he will never own a car. It is part of city living.

To quote my favorite author "you do like to mis-paraphrase" If you ever want to have a real conversation, let me know.

You do like to mis-paraphrase. My beef is that the NCAA misused their ability to punish athletes for breaking a rule. And as evidence I offer the NCAA's own actions. They have retroactively changed their punishment once, and are now messaging they will do it a second time.

Yes, I have been careful not to claim that they are without fault, or that there should not be a rule against gambling, or there should not be consequences for breaking the rule (even if we disagree on whether my consequences are so light as to be meaningless). My argument is that both the original penalties, and the first set of retroactive penalties, were too harsh given the facts and circumstances.

In what way is this clip evidence that Twitter is better? Are you saying that in the past this would not have been on Twitter and now it is? Or that you can only find this on Twitter? Or something else?

Everyone will enact new gambling penalties because no one can stop themselves from taking gambling profits.

I disagree with you on how the real world works. There are any number of violations of rules, or laws that have a different punishment for a first time offense than for repeated offenses. Warnings exit. Probation exists. Punishments for violating probation exist. Ratcheting punishments for repeat offenders exist. Going to the maximal allowable punishment right away is some old testament stuff, but not real world stuff. You say, it is pretty simple, and I disagree with that, as well. It is actually quite nuanced. And part of that nuance is the NCAA's own complicity with the gambling industry, their history of hypocrisy with regard to the benefits received by the athletes (notice I did not say student-athletes?), and the recent trend of the courts and legislatures calling them on their hypocrisies.

A crime needs to occur for there to be a victim of a crime. In the case of the Iowa wrestlers there are no crimes and no allegations of crime. In the case of Paniro Johnson, none of what you list is alleged to have occurred. His alleged crime relates to his attempts to disguise his identity. In your list (a) is not a crime, (b) is not alleged to have occurred, making (1) and (2) moot, and (3) is also not a crime. I need you to tell me you understand what a crime is.

We should also consider the motivation of the NCAA in changing their punishments. Remember that they have already retroactively changed the punishment once, and they are now considering a second retroactive change to the punishment. Why would they do that? One possible explanation is that they are reasonable stewards of sport and they that feel a sort of parental benevolence toward their charges, the student-athletes. They are doing this for their own good. Of course, their entire history of enforcement actions and rule sets would suggest otherwise. A second possible explanation is profit motive. Several of their member institutions already take payments from gambling companies. They also use their position to promote gambling among their students, including underaged students. The NCAA and member institutions have already lost a number of court protections for their past hypocritical positions. They know that they cannot both take money from gambling companies, and overly harshly punish students for doing the thing that they are promoting, AND expect that to hold up in court over the long haul. A third possibility is that they are mostly concerned about the purity of sport and the wonderful things it can do for the amateur athlete in between going to classes, but classes always come first. I had a hard time typing that sentence between giggles.

Let me take that back. It is not even a crime in almost all cases. It is a rules violation.

Yes. Can you identify a victim?