Author Topic: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke  (Read 7605 times)

Dave D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15994
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #25 on: January 09, 2018, 02:35:23 PM »
Yes, and his performance in Iron Man also makes you smile.

Especially when he shouts "SHOW ME THE MONEY" to Tom Cruise.

His stand up special, I'm a grown little man, makes me laugh. But he was funny as Dr. Huxtable as well.

QuietYou

  • Guest
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #26 on: January 09, 2018, 02:50:13 PM »
His stand up special, I'm a grown little man, makes me laugh. But he was funny as Dr. Huxtable as well.
Can’t forget about his performance in “I Am Legend”

trapz101

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2707
  • team 'THE CORN'
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #27 on: January 09, 2018, 05:02:40 PM »
'bad','man in a mirror','don't stop til u get enough' were classics....love his songs!!
T

WalterWhite

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8648
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #28 on: January 09, 2018, 05:34:13 PM »
Matt, you'd be better off taking your $500 and using it to pay another prostitute to be inseminated with your poisonous sperm. I've never made any of those comments, and I've quite clearly stated - numerous times now - that I don't deny the evidence indicating genetic differences between genders and racial groups. I've also stated that I don't think it's wise to attempt to remedy these differences by imposing quotas and legal requirements on businesses and educational institutions.  As I've already asked of you, please cite instances of me making these statements. You wouldn't know about citing sources, would you? You're too busy plagiarising material from actual academics and fantasising about debating Richard Dawkins while you lay on that filthy sofa of yours, gazing up at your wall of participation trophies, sperm test results, and high school exam certificates.

You've been exposed numerous times now, and you don't even have the integrity to admit your mistakes; you just retreat back into your own little fantasy world until you've recovered enough to post more irrelevant gibberish. Do not attempt to have a conversation with me until you acknowledge the fact that you're a disingenuous fraud, who misrepresents the views of others and steals material from published papers in order to pass it off as your own. In case you're having trouble finding the thread where I highlighted your repeated lies and asked you to address them, it's here: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=640817.0

As you're so keen to make a bet, I bet you $500 that you can't cite evidence of me claiming that 'our brains didn't evolve AT ALL between races'. You've just accused me of making that statement here, now go and provide the evidence or I will give you the name of a charity to donate the money to. Run along, Rain Man. The clock is ticking!


 :D

visualizeperfection

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10649
  • Getbig sponsored athlete.
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #29 on: January 09, 2018, 06:54:17 PM »

Matt

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16693
  • YouTube FitnessByMatt
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #30 on: January 09, 2018, 07:01:07 PM »
Matt, you'd be better off taking your $500 and using it to pay another prostitute to be inseminated with your poisonous sperm. I've never made any of those comments, and I've quite clearly stated - numerous times now - that I don't deny the evidence indicating genetic differences between genders and racial groups. I've also stated that I don't think it's wise to attempt to remedy these differences by imposing quotas and legal requirements on businesses and educational institutions.  As I've already asked of you, please cite instances of me making these statements. You wouldn't know about citing sources, would you? You're too busy plagiarising material from actual academics and fantasising about debating Richard Dawkins while you lay on that filthy sofa of yours, gazing up at your wall of participation trophies, sperm test results, and high school exam certificates.

You've been exposed numerous times now, and you don't even have the integrity to admit your mistakes; you just retreat back into your own little fantasy world until you've recovered enough to post more irrelevant gibberish. Do not attempt to have a conversation with me until you acknowledge the fact that you're a disingenuous fraud, who misrepresents the views of others and steals material from published papers in order to pass it off as your own. In case you're having trouble finding the thread where I highlighted your repeated lies and asked you to address them, it's here: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=640817.0

As you're so keen to make a bet, I bet you $500 that you can't cite evidence of me claiming that 'our brains didn't evolve AT ALL between races'. You've just accused me of making that statement here, now go and provide the evidence or I will give you the name of a charity to donate the money to. Run along, Rain Man. The clock is ticking!


Sir, after you essential called Stefan Molyneux a psychopath, it really does no justice to your position, assuming it is an intelligent one, and would make even the most critical of thinkers wonder if you have views of any significant level of maturity.  Naturally, my side gets associated with bigotry and hatred, but that is due to decades of mass media brainwashing.  I expect "normies" to immediately assume I am hateful or racist simply for being vocal about the topics I am vocal about to begin with - but one of my measures as to whether or not a person is of high intelligence determining if they can ascertain the difference between a person who can hold an intellectual discussion on unpopular topics involving the politically correct holy trinity of race, gender, and sexual orientation.  If a person is able to discuss these things without immediately calling his opposition racist, my respect for their intelligence amplifies, as it is evidence that they are not simply brainwashed by mass media.  Overwhelmingly, most people fall into the category of being easily brainwashed on this matter.  As said, your referring to Stefan Molyneux - someone who is quite possibly the most articulate [albeit, at times verbose] content producer on YouTube - as a psychopath, didn't bode well in my first impression of your aptitude.  Surely you can understand why that might be?

Also, insulting my children is quite immature.  Yes, as NelsonMuntz has stated, I have seven autistic children with 12 baby mothers.  Is that a bad thing?  Are MALE Getbiggers making fun of me for being unmarried?  LOL.  Wow.  Why would I want to walk into the legal minefield that is the Western institution of marriage?  No thank you!

What exactly do you think academia is, Meta-physical?  An academic publishes a finding, and someone else essentially repeats it after elaborating on it or refining it in some way.  In certain cases, the previous findings are thrown out completely; in other cases, the findings are confirmed.  If the latter occurs, there is nothing wrong with "stealing" their findings.  Somehow I suspect your definition of concepts in Calculus would be remarkably similar to those Newton's Principia Mathematica.  Ditto for your definition of the theory of relativity.  Gee, I wonder why?

Obviously if I base my views on the totality of currently available empirical evidence, it will mean that my views do not simply resemble those of top academics - but are indeed reproductions of those ideas.  Why wouldn't this be the case?

If I asked you whether or not Ginger Root increases the body's ability to digest protein, and resulted in a net increase in the quantity of protein synthesized in a 24-hour period over and above what it would be without the supplementation of Ginger Root, would your answer not resemble closely that of a combination of abstracts on the subject?  Why wouldn't this be the case?

If you catch me plagiarizing something word by word, please feel free to let everyone know.  But if you are simply saying that my views are similar to top academics in the field of genetics, or psychometric testing, my only answer to that would be - DUH.  Again, why wouldn't this be the case, Meta-physical?

As for my wall of "participation trophies", I didn't realize that winning the CAASA Ontario Strongman Contest in 2017, qualifying me for Nationals was a "participation trophy".  No matter what way you cut it, I am still the top 170-lb strongman competitor in Northwestern Ontario.  I happen to feel that bench pressing 335-lb at 167-lb body weight is impressive - but hey, this is Getbig after all, where 315x10 is a standard warm-up weight on the way up to working sets using 405-495+ for reps.

I am not lying about having four years of university mathematics in my background, nor about having slightly more time than that in the military.  My mathematics course and contest awards and my weight class strongman and powerlifting trophies can be publicly verified.  I never claimed to be the smartest nor the strongest man out there, but for a drug-free 170-lb who competes for fun, I would say I am pretty strong - and time and time again, the people claiming to be so much stronger DO NOT come out to compete.  So am I supposed to believe there are so many people bench pressing 350+ and deadlifting 500+ when only maybe 25 or 30 people in my city of 100,000+ citizens have actually proven this?  So obviously I am going to believe I am one of the top 100 strongest men in my city after 12 years of competing [this month], and no evidence whatsoever suggesting otherwise.

Lastly, just as I begun this post - if I did make a straw man out of your views, please accept my apologies.  I will not be putting words in your mouth again.  I can't stand straw man arguments - indeed, the biggest obstacle facing those who intelligently and articulately discus race and intelligence is the barrage of straw man attacks that they must face.  As a person who despises this myself, the very last thing I would want to do is portray your worldview or position as something that it patently is not. :)

Irongrip400

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21174
  • Pan Germanism, Pax Britannica
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #31 on: January 09, 2018, 07:30:38 PM »
Dear Taffin,

Ignore those fatuous comments; he's quite clearly living a life of luxury.


That's Will Smith jackass.

The Scott

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21596
  • I'm a victim of soicumcision!!
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #32 on: January 09, 2018, 07:32:09 PM »
Taffin, just because he has made a lot of movies (and still act although he is older), does not mean he is broke.

He doesn't NEED to act in movies, he does it because he loves the craft.



He's gving Oscar that "guess where I be puttin you later on tonight?" look.

visualizeperfection

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10649
  • Getbig sponsored athlete.
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #33 on: January 09, 2018, 07:33:10 PM »
Sir, after you essential called Stefan Molyneux a psychopath, it really does no justice to your position, assuming it is an intelligent one, and would make even the most critical of thinkers wonder if you have views of any significant level of maturity.  Naturally, my side gets associated with bigotry and hatred, but that is due to decades of mass media brainwashing.  I expect "normies" to immediately assume I am hateful or racist simply for being vocal about the topics I am vocal about to begin with - but one of my measures as to whether or not a person is of high intelligence determining if they can ascertain the difference between a person who can hold an intellectual discussion on unpopular topics involving the politically correct holy trinity of race, gender, and sexual orientation.  If a person is able to discuss these things without immediately calling his opposition racist, my respect for their intelligence amplifies, as it is evidence that they are not simply brainwashed by mass media.  Overwhelmingly, most people fall into the category of being easily brainwashed on this matter.  As said, your referring to Stefan Molyneux - someone who is quite possibly the most articulate [albeit, at times verbose] content producer on YouTube - as a psychopath, didn't bode well in my first impression of your aptitude.  Surely you can understand why that might be?

Also, insulting my children is quite immature.  Yes, as NelsonMuntz has stated, I have seven autistic children with 12 baby mothers.  Is that a bad thing?  Are MALE Getbiggers making fun of me for being unmarried?  LOL.  Wow.  Why would I want to walk into the legal minefield that is the Western institution of marriage?  No thank you!

What exactly do you think academia is, Meta-physical?  An academic publishes a finding, and someone else essentially repeats it after elaborating on it or refining it in some way.  In certain cases, the previous findings are thrown out completely; in other cases, the findings are confirmed.  If the latter occurs, there is nothing wrong with "stealing" their findings.  Somehow I suspect your definition of concepts in Calculus would be remarkably similar to those Newton's Principia Mathematica.  Ditto for your definition of the theory of relativity.  Gee, I wonder why?

Obviously if I base my views on the totality of currently available empirical evidence, it will mean that my views do not simply resemble those of top academics - but are indeed reproductions of those ideas.  Why wouldn't this be the case?

If I asked you whether or not Ginger Root increases the body's ability to digest protein, and resulted in a net increase in the quantity of protein synthesized in a 24-hour period over and above what it would be without the supplementation of Ginger Root, would your answer not resemble closely that of a combination of abstracts on the subject?  Why wouldn't this be the case?

If you catch me plagiarizing something word by word, please feel free to let everyone know.  But if you are simply saying that my views are similar to top academics in the field of genetics, or psychometric testing, my only answer to that would be - DUH.  Again, why wouldn't this be the case, Meta-physical?

As for my wall of "participation trophies", I didn't realize that winning the CAASA Ontario Strongman Contest in 2017, qualifying me for Nationals was a "participation trophy".  No matter what way you cut it, I am still the top 170-lb strongman competitor in Northwestern Ontario.  I happen to feel that bench pressing 335-lb at 167-lb body weight is impressive - but hey, this is Getbig after all, where 315x10 is a standard warm-up weight on the way up to working sets using 405-495+ for reps.

I am not lying about having four years of university mathematics in my background, nor about having slightly more time than that in the military.  My mathematics course and contest awards and my weight class strongman and powerlifting trophies can be publicly verified.  I never claimed to be the smartest nor the strongest man out there, but for a drug-free 170-lb who competes for fun, I would say I am pretty strong - and time and time again, the people claiming to be so much stronger DO NOT come out to compete.  So am I supposed to believe there are so many people bench pressing 350+ and deadlifting 500+ when only maybe 25 or 30 people in my city of 100,000+ citizens have actually proven this?  So obviously I am going to believe I am one of the top 100 strongest men in my city after 12 years of competing [this month], and no evidence whatsoever suggesting otherwise.

Lastly, just as I begun this post - if I did make a straw man out of your views, please accept my apologies.  I will not be putting words in your mouth again.  I can't stand straw man arguments - indeed, the biggest obstacle facing those who intelligently and articulately discus race and intelligence is the barrage of straw man attacks that they must face.  As a person who despises this myself, the very last thing I would want to do is portray your worldview or position as something that it patently is not. :)

Don't you have children or some other more constructive way to donate your time to as opposed to GetBig thesis papers?

Matt

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16693
  • YouTube FitnessByMatt
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #34 on: January 09, 2018, 07:43:01 PM »
:D

 ;D ;D ;D

Thank you for posting that photo.  :D

I was four weeks into cleaning up my diet in preparation for a local contest that was being held four weeks after that.  When I found out that outside [non-sanctioned] media was not allowed, and that the total cost would be $1,000, I decided that it would be a better use of my money and time to use that $1,000 to sponsor a local strongman contest, or individual competitor - for contests that would allow me to get my own footage, and share it on my Facebook and YouTube pages.   This particular contest was actually a contest that would qualify competitors for provincials.  Given that I would have been the only one entering in my weight category, I would have actually been able to compete in provincials, which I find funny.  I would have or could have been in decent shape...but I just found the entire event to not be worth my time.  Also, Saturday and Sunday are two of my days with the kids, and I did not want to bore them by dragging them to a physique contest...essentially a male physique pageant.  Also, supposedly tickets sold out fast, and would have been very hard to acquire.  So I decided against it.  I did get in pretty good shape in the four weeks before making that decision though.

WalterWhite...Oh God...do you recommend that I watch Breaking Bad?  I kind of got into it, then maybe stopped maybe one episode into season three.

My first bench press workout of 2018 started on Saturday...so training needs to get moving NOW if I intend to re-qualify for the CAASA 170-lb Nationals.  At 36 years and 19 days old, I do think I'm just starting to feel the difficulty in keeping excess body fat off...I don't think making 170-lb will be difficult, but it may not be as easy AF as it was just as recently as 2015...in this video I was 168-lb minutes before the first event [bus pull], but 163.6-lb in the clothes I have on in the video when I got home after the deadlift event [sans the shoes]:



^ That tire flip took a lot out of me, although remarkably not as much as it did the year before when I got one more flip despite being a whole 25-lb heavier [188-lb].  One more week training on that Viking Press apparatus at the gym that houses it, and I would have gotten it, but alas, I did not get that training in.

I like when Kateri - the MC - makes it a point to mention that I am the lightest guy.  I think that's important.  In fact, another competitor is 5'10 and 270-lb, and she called him "one of the lighter guys", LOL.  There are literally guys ranging in body weight from 280-lb to 375-lb in these local contests, so yeah, I think it's fair to point out that I am under 165.

I do find it funny how on Getbig, everyone bench presses 315 for reps and deadlifts 495-lb for reps, meanwhile, the max Jay Cutler has ever deadlifted 495 for in a video was probably something like six reps.  I'm not saying that he couldn't lift more than that, but it's just so strange that everyone on Getbig goes to these gyms where every lifter is as strong as can be, meanwhile, even going back to the gym after a nine month hiatus and bench pressing 225-lb as my max, I was still the second strongest person in the entire gym...only one other male lifted more than me that day - he hit 225 for a very hard five reps.

Here is me bench pressing 225-lb for 25 reps, weighing just around the 185-lb mark:

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

^ That tire flip took a lot out of me, although remarkably not as much as it did the year before when I got one more flip despite being a whole 25-lb heavier [188-lb].  One more week training on that Viking Press apparatus at the gym that houses it, and I would have gotten it, but alas, I did not get that training in.

I like when Kateri - the MC - makes it a point to mention that I am the lightest guy.  I think that's important.  In fact, another competitor is 5'10 and 270-lb, and she called him "one of the lighter guys", LOL.  There are literally guys ranging in body weight from 280-lb to 375-lb in these local contests, so yeah, I think it's fair to point out that I am under 165.

I do find it funny how on Getbig, everyone bench presses 315 for reps and deadlifts 495-lb for reps, meanwhile, the max Jay Cutler has ever deadlifted 495 for in a video was probably something like six reps.  I'm not saying that he couldn't lift more than that, but it's just so strange that everyone on Getbig goes to these gyms where every lifter is as strong as can be, meanwhile, even going back to the gym after a nine month hiatus and bench pressing 225-lb as my max, I was still the second strongest person in the entire gym...only one other male lifted more than me that day - he hit 225 for a very hard five reps.

Here is me bench pressing 225-lb for 25 reps, weighing just around the 185-lb mark:

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

^ That tire flip took a lot out of me, although remarkably not as much as it did the year before when I got one more flip despite being a whole 25-lb heavier [188-lb].  One more week training on that Viking Press apparatus at the gym that houses it, and I would have gotten it, but alas, I did not get that training in.

I like when Kateri - the MC - makes it a point to mention that I am the lightest guy.  I think that's important.  In fact, another competitor is 5'10 and 270-lb, and she called him "one of the lighter guys", LOL.  There are literally guys ranging in body weight from 280-lb to 375-lb in these local contests, so yeah, I think it's fair to point out that I am under 165.

I do find it funny how on Getbig, everyone bench presses 315 for reps and deadlifts 495-lb for reps, meanwhile, the max Jay Cutler has ever deadlifted 495 for in a video was probably something like six reps.  I'm not saying that he couldn't lift more than that, but it's just so strange that everyone on Getbig goes to these gyms where every lifter is as strong as can be, meanwhile, even going back to the gym after a nine month hiatus and bench pressing 225-lb as my max, I was still the second strongest person in the entire gym...only one other male lifted more than me that day - he hit 225 for a very hard five reps.

Here is me bench pressing 225-lb for 25 reps, weighing just around the 185-lb mark:



I have also been extremely consistent with my strength over the years, and only in the past year has my walking around weight gone above 180.  I posted this video in 2011, but it is actually from the summer of 2010, around seven months before the date I posted it:



The blue certificate on my wall is from the contest below...as you can see, only six gentlemen attended the contest, but the other five were the strongest in the city...my point is, I keep hearing how strong the average Getbigger is...meanwhile, I have been competing in strength contests for 12 years now, and the supposed average lifter on Getbig is strong enough to place in the top 10 in my city's Strongest Man contest in the open weight category...yeah - no.  I don't believe that at all.

But hey, what can I say?  This is Getbig, where everyone bench presses 315 for reps as a final set leading up to their first working set.  I suppose I just need to change my outlook to "Strive to be average!"  Maybe one day I'll make it there.  :-\ :-X


Matt

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16693
  • YouTube FitnessByMatt
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #35 on: January 09, 2018, 07:57:42 PM »
Don't you have children or some other more constructive way to donate your time to as opposed to GetBig thesis papers?


All that I can say is this:

When I see your username, I immediately think of my wall of trophies and academic/military accolades.  ;D

I'm kidding.  :)

On a serious note - I get my children four days out of the week, although it is subject to change depending on the schedules of the numerous baby mommies I have [as Getbig legend NelsonMuntz stated, I have seven children with 12 baby mommies].  I get my kids all weekend, and two other days of the week.  The weekends are consistent, but the other two days are subject to change.  :)

I spoil my kids terribly, so it's constantly a work in progress as to how often is the right amount of time to see them.

FYI, we live in interesting times...consider the demographic decline of White people.  So few people are having children, that - my experience is - there are a lot of relatives around who want to see the children.

Consider that when my children were born, they had all four grandparents alive, and 7 OUT OF 8 great grandparents!  In that time, I have since lost both of my grandfathers [my mom's dad in 2012, and my dad's dad last year].  Also in 2012, they my kids lost their mom's mom's dad.

My kids have ALL FOUR biological great-grandmothers still alive - three of whom live in my city!  And due to the atrocious White fertility rates right now, with basically no one having any children...we have a situation where grandchildren are rare commodities.  All four grandparents have ONLY my children as grandchildren!  So with no other grandchildren, both sets of grandparents want the kids all the time.  They both take them for one sleepover each week.  They are also heading on a vacation with their mother's parents next week. :)

My point is that with basically no one having children, every grandparent/great-grandparent wants to have/watch my children!  Both grandparents get one sleepover a week which isn't THAT much when you think about it, but it only leaves five overnights a week to be with the kids.  So AT BEST, I get 2 of 5 of those overnights.  Rather than fight about it, I try to get as many days/evenings with my kids as possible...as it is difficult to get them for overnights, with so much...well...competitio n basically.

This is the end result of the massive demographic decline/disaster that White people currently face.  With so few people having children, the children that are born are coddled, and eventually end up in universities where this coddling continues, which produces all sorts of disastrous social consequences.  Everyone does indeed get a participation trophy, and everyone is treated like a special snowflake in need of a safe space.  ::)

In my case, it means that everyone wants my kids, and I need to literally fight to get them for as many days out of the week as I can.  So to answer your question, yes, I do have kids to take care of - but...well...I have to get in line in order to do so.  As I said, that is the end result of White people having so few children.

It is what it is.  I'm as active a father as I can be, but maybe it's for the best that my mother and my baby mommy's mother does the "heavy lifting" when it comes to discipline - I am WAY too easy on my kids.  :-X  They are spoiled - but they are amazing kids.  I love them.  I couldn't be happier with all three of my kids.  I got very lucky having such amazing children.

To my fellow Getbiggers - I'm telling you right now, it IS worth it to be a father.  It's not without cost, but damn, is it worth it.  I can say nothing bad about being a dad...nothing at all.  It has been something I have loved since literally day one, and I can't wait to be a father again, for the fourth time.

PS - does anyone know how the following video made it online?  ;D :-X


Joe Valentino

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2127
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2018, 08:03:05 PM »
I'm pretty sure Silvio Samuel is broke, though

youandme

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10957
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #37 on: January 09, 2018, 08:05:00 PM »
Lmfao. Nice new thread

Dave D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15994
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2018, 08:06:31 PM »
All that I can say is this:

When I see your username, I immediately think of my wall of trophies and academic/military accolades.  ;D

I'm kidding.  :)

On a serious note - I get my children four days out of the week, although it is subject to change depending on the schedules of the numerous baby mommies I have [as Getbig legend NelsonMuntz stated, I have seven children with 12 baby mommies].  I get my kids all weekend, and two other days of the week.  The weekends are consistent, but the other two days are subject to change.  :)

I spoil my kids terribly, so it's constantly a work in progress as to how often is the right amount of time to see them.

FYI, we live in interesting times...consider the demographic decline of White people.  So few people are having children, that - my experience is - there are a lot of relatives around who want to see the children.

Consider that when my children were born, they had all four grandparents alive, and 7 OUT OF 8 great grandparents!  In that time, I have since lost both of my grandfathers [my mom's dad in 2012, and my dad's dad last year].  Also in 2012, they my kids lost their mom's mom's dad.

My kids have ALL FOUR biological great-grandmothers still alive - three of whom live in my city!  And due to the atrocious White fertility rates right now, with basically no one having any children...we have a situation where grandchildren are rare commodities.  All four grandparents have ONLY my children as grandchildren!  So with no other grandchildren, both sets of grandparents want the kids all the time.  They both take them for one sleepover each week.  They are also heading on a vacation with their mother's parents next week. :)

My point is that with basically no one having children, every grandparent/great-grandparent wants to have/watch my children!  Both grandparents get one sleepover a week which isn't THAT much when you think about it, but it only leaves five overnights a week to be with the kids.  So AT BEST, I get 2 of 5 of those overnights.  Rather than fight about it, I try to get as many days/evenings with my kids as possible...as it is difficult to get them for overnights, with so much...well...competitio n basically.

This is the end result of the massive demographic decline/disaster that White people currently face.  With so few people having children, the children that are born are coddled, and eventually end up in universities where this coddling continues, which produces all sorts of disastrous social consequences.  Everyone does indeed get a participation trophy, and everyone is treated like a special snowflake in need of a safe space.  ::)

In my case, it means that everyone wants my kids, and I need to literally fight to get them for as many days out of the week as I can.  So to answer your question, yes, I do have kids to take care of - but...well...I have to get in line in order to do so.  As I said, that is the end result of White people having so few children.

It is what it is.  I'm as active a father as I can be, but maybe it's for the best that my mother and my baby mommy's mother does the "heavy lifting" when it comes to discipline - I am WAY too easy on my kids.  :-X  They are spoiled - but they are amazing kids.  I love them.  I couldn't be happier with all three of my kids.  I got very lucky having such amazing children.

To my fellow Getbiggers - I'm telling you right now, it IS worth it to be a father.  It's not without cost, but damn, is it worth it.  I can say nothing bad about being a dad...nothing at all.  It has been something I have loved since literally day one, and I can't wait to be a father again, for the fourth time.

PS - does anyone know how the following video made it online?  ;D :-X



He was really good in Rocky 3 as clubber lang.

SGT BARNES

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1405
  • crush your enemies, see them driven before you
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2018, 08:31:02 PM »
Holy shit - this matt fvcktard has a wall full of high school "honor roll" papers framed on a wall...

WTF is wrong with this guy, i have never seen such pathetic and desperate narcissism.

this guy would video himelf shitting and put it on youtube.

Especially dumbfucked this one is


Meta-physical

  • Guest
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #40 on: January 09, 2018, 09:16:03 PM »
Matt, you've once again managed to turn an otherwise light-hearted and humorous thread into another tedious and prolonged exercise in futility where I am obliged to rebut the allegations you've made, despite it being patently obvious that they are figments of your imagination. You are either incapable of reading and comprehending what I wrote, or you're simply posting these fabrications in order to frame your continued political ramblings as mere responses to provocations, rather than you intentionally breaking some alleged promise you made to Ron. For these reasons, this will be the last time I bother to address you.

'Sir, after you essential called Stefan Molyneux a psychopath, it really does no justice to your position.'

You aren't even aware of any position of mine. With regard to Molyneux, go back and read the thread I linked in here again. I provided multiple citations to show why I don't take Molyneux seriously. I even provided you with a quote of his and asked you to address whether or not it challenged your views on the heritability of IQ and genes. You didn't bother to reply.

'Also, insulting my children is quite immature.'

I don't believe I did insult your children. I may have called your sperm poisonous - which, given your dishonest and conceited nature, seems accurate, but I've never made comments about your children. If I have, please cite the evidence.

'If you catch me plagiarizing something word by word, please feel free to let everyone know.'

I did, and I posted it in your thread not long after you boasted of the 'high intellectual standard' of your writing, and challenged anyone to deny that it was 'anything less than the intelligent Master's degree level'. I found that your essay was composed of paragraphs taken from other published works and quoted verbatim, without any attempt whatsoever to acknowledge the authors and credit them for their labour. This is the definition of plagiarism, and it's a serious violation of scholarly practice. I provided you with the evidence, and you didn't bother to address it.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=637129.msg8953087#msg8953087

'I am not lying about having four years of university mathematics in my background, nor about having slightly more time than that in the military.'

I never said that you were lying. I simply find the ostentatious display of mediocre accomplishments on your wall, coupled with your constant self-aggrandising stories to be really quite sad. You graduated with a bachelor's degree from a mediocre university, and spent some time as a reservist in a basic military unit, most likely never even deploying anywhere. You might want to adopt a little modesty.

'Lastly, just as I begun this post - if I did make a straw man out of your views, please accept my apologies.'

You did - on every single point - and I've indicated where. That being said, I’m quite happy to stop debating this. I’ve made my point and I’m sure we are all bored of it now.

falco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18363
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #41 on: January 10, 2018, 05:22:25 AM »
erm.....

Not sure everyone got the 'joke' (such as it was).....

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=641680.0

 :P



I believe you are an english gentleman. That being said, you should be aware that our american friends are not very keen on using sarcasm, in their posts.

falco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18363
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #42 on: January 10, 2018, 05:27:11 AM »
Just the other day he won a prize! How can he be broke?


werewolf operative

  • Guest
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #43 on: January 10, 2018, 05:49:31 AM »




Not bad.

Meta-physical

  • Guest
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #44 on: January 10, 2018, 06:52:58 AM »
That's Will Smith jackass.

 ::) Irongrip, please. Will Smith was the belligerent midget from Diff'rent Strokes. He's often confused with Ronnie Coleman - the former bodybuilder and child star from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. Perhaps you need to watch Million Dollar Baby again to remind yourself who Samuel L Jackson is.

Kwon

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50061
  • Team Hairy Chest Henda
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #45 on: January 10, 2018, 07:27:24 AM »
That's Will Smith jackass.

No, that's Cuba L. Freeman (who was great in Iron man) as you can clearly see.


Q

QuietYou

  • Guest
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #46 on: January 10, 2018, 07:29:42 AM »
No, that's Cuba L. Freeman (who was great in Iron man) as you can clearly see.



How many pictures of Bobby Lashley are we gonna share? I believe he went away and left for a while from comedy, to go to Africa because the Illuminati was chasing him. But he’s back now and had a couple standup specials on Netflix.

Kwon

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50061
  • Team Hairy Chest Henda
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #47 on: January 10, 2018, 07:34:47 AM »
How many pictures of Bobby Lashley are we gonna share? I believe he went away and left for a while from comedy, to go to Africa because the Illuminati was chasing him. But he’s back now and had a couple standup specials on Netflix.

Love his standups! Especially "Delirious".
Q

falco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 18363
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #48 on: January 10, 2018, 08:25:31 AM »
How many pictures of Bobby Lashley are we gonna share? I believe he went away and left for a while from comedy, to go to Africa because the Illuminati was chasing him. But he’s back now and had a couple standup specials on Netflix.

His performance as a taxi driver, in Collateral, with Tom Cruise, was awesome!

Kwon

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50061
  • Team Hairy Chest Henda
Re: Samuel L Jackson is Not Broke
« Reply #49 on: January 10, 2018, 08:35:48 AM »
His performance as a taxi driver, in Collateral, with Tom Cruise, was awesome!
Agreed!


"SHOW ME THE MONEY!"

Love it!
Q