Mike Honcho

It's not vaccines, ya morons! It's chemtrails.

Cool, thanks for agreeing.

Maybe the PR dept stepped in because the team was 2-7 at the time and losing another game to a sh!tty team and you know maybe slow your roll on the celebrations.

I'm hoping they are calling him out because it's insane this idiot is getting 20-40M fightin for his "boxing" a legend from 30 years ago. I think they just want to end the charade and I'm all for it.

Just release the report already - I'm sure anything they find in it will be minor.

Wordle 1,250 4/6 🟨🟨 🟨 🟩🟩🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Framed #985 🟥 🟩 https://framed.wtf I need to watch that movie again. Got to be really different the 2nd viewing.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00029890.2024.2370240#d1e1821 Good luck with that...I'm just like looking at it. Been way too long for me to remember 1/1000th of the math.

Nice-and yeah, I'm thinking Dad gets a sentence for that one.

Depends on the state and that's not how it works in NY. As I read it, in NY you are convicted upon receiving the verdict. ETA: I think I read in CA that it's when sentencing has been completed that you are convicted---so it varies.

Another one, when I was a kid I fell in love with the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago the sub, the coal mine, all the cool exhibits. At least 3 times before I turned 13, my Dad who worked in Chicago would take me and just drop me off at the Museum first thing in the morning and then pick me up 8 hours later on his way home. I don't think that would fly today.

She's a bit of a MILF

Also not mentioned about the untested and novel legal theories is that they were that way because nobody ever thought someone who attempt to pay hush money from campaign funds, or try to get a state official to produce votes, or just create fake slates of electors to change the certification of an election. But no, it actually was a coordinated work of different AG's, elected GOP officials and the DOJ to get Trump!!!

And one more example of the self-delusional world you live. It's why I'll point out the flaws in your fantastical statements, but I'm not willing to engage in any debate trying to pierce your armor of fantasy and fallacious arguments.

And also in case everyone missed it from the Opinion of the Guest Essay. That doesn’t prove that they were brought for political reasons.

A guest essay on the opinion page to you means that they "essentially admit it".

My stance is these players are supposed to be the hero's of the game(and I'm not getting into a debate about the racist Ty Cobb today)...and the hero's of the game don't go to a dark part of the gym to find a guy to sell them illegal drugs to boost their careers. I think a young baseball fan can look at the all-time leaders like Bonds, Clemons and it won't take them long to "learn" why these 'greats' are not in the HOF. I get where others are coming from but that's my 2 cents and it has been since the beginning.

I'm just saying that maybe a guy who was up that year, how had 287 more career HR's than any other player, might have, maybe should have been a unanimous selection, considering they had 10 votes. But at this point it's just silly how this has come about...Ruth only had 95.1%, 11 people left him off the list.

And before that reinstate Buck Weaver. No where near a HOF player, but his ban is a stain baseball.

Also, I'd vote for CC. It's going to be difficult to compare pitchers in this era to past because of game changes, but a Cy Young, best pitcher on a WS winning team(2009 Yankees), 3000K +, dominance for quite a long time in the game.

I'm not a historian, but I think a good case could be made that a few of these guys should have been unanimous. Ty Cobb: Center fielder who received the most votes in the inaugural election Babe Ruth: Right fielder Honus Wagner: Shortstop Christy Mathewson: Pitcher Walter Johnson: Pitcher

I won't say a thing unless under threat of subpoena.

I also have trouble taking any precedent cited by they GOP seriously. There was no precedent for denying a President his SCOTUS nom a confirmation hearing until McConnell did that for a year saying it can't be done in a election year...then confirming Amy Comey Barrett after voting had already started in in 2020.

It's been done before---it's not new precedent. This man is about to become the top cop in the nation, damn straight any investigative evidence should be on the table for the senate and the public to review.

I bet you've seen that move-it's your bread & butter.

No - but he has suggested pardoning some J6 defendants and that's pretty absurd and I won't be surprised if he does (not this particular case).