Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on February 15, 2014, 06:08:36 AM
-
Just days after warning his party that it will lose its electoral grip on Texas if it doesn’t broaden its appeal, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., offered an even more dire prediction on Thursday: Forget losing Texas – the GOP might never win a presidential election again if it doesn’t change its tune.
“I think Republicans will not win again in my lifetime…unless they become a new GOP, a new Republican Party,” Paul said during an interview with conservative radio host Glenn Beck that aired Thursday. “And it has to be a transformation. Not a little tweaking at the edges.”
The Kentucky Republican said the GOP needs to do a better job of tailoring specific messages to specific groups.
With young people, he said, he would stress an opposition to excessive government surveillance and a respect for personal privacy. And among minority communities, he said, a message of criminal justice reform – including changes to the “war on drugs” and sentencing laws – would resonate.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-without-change-gop-will-not-win-again-in-my-lifetime/
-
Democrats couldn't change minds so they changed the electorate.
-
Democrats couldn't change minds so they changed the electorate.
I notice that when ever you can't formulate a proper rebuttal you resort to this.
-
I notice that when ever you can't formulate a proper rebuttal you resort to this.
It's a valid rebuttal. Democrats didn't change either. They just changed the voters. Republicans don't have that option. They can't import a brand new crop of constituents.
-
the problem is the repubs have let the far right nuts take the party over,so getting a majority of the vote is going to be nearly impossible now.
-
Democrats couldn't change minds so they changed the electorate.
What does this mean?
Are you saying that you object to having more eligible folks vote? That sounds pretty un-democratic.
-
What does this mean?
Are you saying that you object to having more eligible folks vote? That sounds pretty un-democratic.
Are you serious?
-
Are you serious?
Yeah, serious. What you mean honestly isn't clear to me.
What do you mean by "changing the electorate"?
-
Yeah, serious. What you mean honestly isn't clear to me.
What do you mean by "changing the electorate"?
You're obsessed. You don't know what changing the electorate means?
-
It's a valid rebuttal. Democrats didn't change either. They just changed the voters. Republicans don't have that option. They can't import a brand new crop of constituents.
x2
-
You're obsessed. You don't know what changing the electorate means?
No, I'm not sure what you mean. Any hints forthcoming?
-
No, I'm not sure what you mean. Any hints forthcoming?
Isn't it obvious
-
Isn't it obvious
Not to me, no.
So end the suspense; What did you mean by "changing the electorate"?
-
Not to me, no.
So end the suspense; What did you mean by "changing the electorate"?
Immigration reform aka amnesty= 20 million permanent democrat voters who will be utterly dependent on government.
Vigorously fighting voter id laws= Democrats pretend that its a civil rights issue, but its really about maintaining the left's rich history of voter fraud.
AG Holders push for letting convicted felons vote= Will also be a windfall for Democrat party numbers.
The Republican party is supposed to be the party of industrious, hard working, law abiding red-blooded Americans. The Democrat party doesn't appeal to your typical American because its amoral, corrupt and stands for everything in the world that normal people find repugnant. The left's entire philosophy and very reason for existence is based upon widespread poverty and misery. If the vast majority of the public were self sufficient, honest and hard working== what possible use or reason would anyone ever have to vote Democrat?
The right cant import convicted felons, illegal aliens or use gimmicks to commit widespread voter fraud. These are luxuries that are at the express disposal of the libs.
-
Immigration reform aka amnesty= 20 million permanent democrat voters who will be utterly dependent on government.
Vigorously fighting voter id laws= Democrats pretend that its a civil rights issue, but its really about maintaining the left's rich history of voter fraud.
AG Holders push for letting convicted felons vote= Will also be a windfall for Democrat party numbers.
The Republican party is supposed to be the party of industrious, hard working, law abiding red-blooded Americans. The Democrat party doesn't appeal to your typical American because its amoral, corrupt and stands for everything in the world that normal people find repugnant. The left's entire philosophy and very reason for existence is based upon widespread poverty and misery. If the vast majority of the public were self sufficient, honest and hard working== what possible use or reason would anyone ever have to vote Democrat?
The right cant import convicted felons, illegal aliens or use gimmicks to commit widespread voter fraud. These are luxuries that are at the express disposal of the libs.
Watch that retard RRwhore respond with a "what do you mean?"
-
Watch that retard RRwhore respond with a "what do you mean?"
I'm not a retard compared to you, ya sky-wizard worshiping simpleton.
-
Immigration reform aka amnesty= 20 million permanent democrat voters who will be utterly dependent on government.
Vigorously fighting voter id laws= Democrats pretend that its a civil rights issue, but its really about maintaining the left's rich history of voter fraud.
AG Holders push for letting convicted felons vote= Will also be a windfall for Democrat party numbers.
The Republican party is supposed to be the party of industrious, hard working, law abiding red-blooded Americans. The Democrat party doesn't appeal to your typical American because its amoral, corrupt and stands for everything in the world that normal people find repugnant. The left's entire philosophy and very reason for existence is based upon widespread poverty and misery. If the vast majority of the public were self sufficient, honest and hard working== what possible use or reason would anyone ever have to vote Democrat?
The right cant import convicted felons, illegal aliens or use gimmicks to commit widespread voter fraud. These are luxuries that are at the express disposal of the libs.
Thanks for your explanation. Sincerely.
I have some thoughts about some of your examples, though:
Yeah, it seem reasonable that amnesty for illegals will grow the Dem voting ranks (someday, anyway - weren't they talking about a 13-year "path to citizenship"?), but so what? -- Wouldn't it also increase the number of taxpayers?
I mean, I guess you could assign illegal aliens some kind of 2nd class citizenship that would make them ineligible to vote but it doesn't seem fair to tax them without giving them some say in how the country is run. For wasn't this a central factor in the American Revolution 240 years ago? (Or maybe it's foolish for Mexicans, in particular, to expect fairness from a country that took much of Mexico's land after an unjust war in the first place? - Meh, just a thought.)
In my experience, Hispanics (who make up the bulk of illegal aliens, I think), especially first-generation ones, are some of the hardest working folks anywhere. Make use of their industriousness, I say. It isn't practical to think you can deport all of them and it's said that you wouldn't want to do that anyway because of the effect it would have on certain industries.
So, it's a thorny problem that is particularly fractious for the Repub party, for sure, but I'm not convinced that the Dems main motivation for Immigration Reform is to swell the Dem voting ranks, especially since it's a benefit that will be realized only after at least 10 years. It's possible, though, I guess.
DO dems have a rich history of voter fraud? (I really don't know.) How old is that history? From what I've read it's very uncommon now. (An aside: Didn't they make fun of the nerd in The Breakfast Club for having a fake ID so he could vote?) BTW, supporting the left's contention that the Voter ID laws that are all the rage these days are creating overly difficult obstacles for a small group of some voters, here's a first-hand account of those difficulties that I recently ran across from an American citizen who happened to be born (to military parents) overseas: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/16/1278075/-Voter-ID-Why-It-s-a-Pain-In-The-Ass (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/16/1278075/-Voter-ID-Why-It-s-a-Pain-In-The-Ass)
Re: Letting convicted felons who've served their time vote, how is that not fair? I think if they're on parole, then not being eligible to vote might be warranted, but for ones who've done their time and are now law-abiding? This seems short-sighted and not good for society as a whole. Besides, America locks up so many freakin' folks, particularly black folks, that the idea that felons can never vote sounds intentionally discriminatory to me. That's just me, though, maybe.
Finally, look at what you say here, "The left's entire philosophy and very reason for existence is based upon widespread poverty and misery." I don't disagree with this but I'm sure I have a different slant on it than you for I think the alleviation of widespread poverty and misery is the reason for the left's existence.
Many on the right seem to be perfectly content to live in a world where a small percentage of people are rich, happy and in control while the great majority (70+%) are relatively poor, miserable, and fighting over scraps. It's just not what the USA is supposed to be about.
No surprise that a some folks on this board who'd give serious consideration to the wisdom of only letting landed folks with money vote would complain about "growing the electorate".
Thank god the majority in this country are not as fearful and uncaring about their fellow man as many of the insecure folks on this board. For real.
-
It doesn't increase the number of tax payers. These are unskilled low wage workers who take in ore from benefits than they pay in taxes. You are only good at recycling talking points.
-
It doesn't increase the number of tax payers. These are unskilled low wage workers who take in ore from benefits than they pay in taxes.
...
You sure about that? Is it too much to ask if you could you support that with a little linkage, perhaps?
-
You sure about that? Is it too much to ask if you could you support that with a little linkage, perhaps?
You don't understand again?
Large-scale immigration from Mexico is a very recent phenomenon. In 1970, the Mexican immigrant population was less than 800,000, compared to nearly 8 million in 2000.
Almost two-thirds of adult Mexican immigrants have not completed high school, compared to fewer than one in ten natives. Mexican immigrants now account for 22 percent of all high school dropouts in the labor force.
Though most natives are more skilled and thus do not face significant job competition from Mexican immigrants, this study (consistent with previous research) indicates that the more than 10 million natives who lack a high school degree do face significant job competition from Mexican immigrants.
By increasing the supply of unskilled labor, Mexican immigration in the 1990s has reduced the wages of workers without a high school education by an estimated 5 percent. The workers affected are already the lowest-paid, comprising a large share of the working poor and those trying to move from welfare to work.
This reduction in wages for the unskilled has likely reduced prices for consumers by only an estimated .08 to .2 percent in the 1990s. The impact is so small because unskilled labor accounts for only a tiny fraction of total economic output.
Author Steven Camarota said of the findings, "Mexican immigration is overwhelmingly unskilled, and it is hard to make an economic argument for unskilled immigration, because it tends to reduce wages for workers who are already the lowest paid and whose real wages actually declined in the 1990s. Moreover, this cheap labor comes with a high cost. Because the modern American economy offers very limited opportunities for workers with little education, continued unskilled immigration cannot help but to significantly increase the size of the poor and uninsured populations, as well as the number of people using welfare."
Because of their much lower education levels, Mexican immigrants earn significantly less than natives on average. This results in lower average tax payments and heavier use of means-tested programs. Based on estimates developed by the National Academy of Sciences for immigrants by age and education at arrival, the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a negative $55,200.
Although they comprise 4.2 percent of the nation’s total population, Mexican immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) account for 10.2 percent of all persons in poverty and 12.5 percent of those without health insurance. Even among Mexican immigrant families that have lived in United States for more than 20 years, almost all of whom are legal residents, more than half live in or near poverty and one-third are uninsured
Even after welfare reform, an estimated 34 percent of households headed by legal Mexican immigrants and 25 percent headed by illegal Mexican immigrants used at least one major welfare program, in contrast to 15 percent of native households. Mexican immigrants who have lived in the United States for more than 20 years, almost all of whom are legal residents, still have double the welfare use rate of natives.
Mexican immigration acts as a subsidy to businesses that employ unskilled workers, holding down labor costs while taxpayers pick up the costs of providing services to a much larger poor and low-income population.
The lower educational attainment of Mexican immigrants appears to persist across the generations. The high school dropout rates of native-born Mexican-Americans (both second and third generation) are two and a half times that of other natives.
Policy Recommendations:
The United States needs to consider programs designed to improve the labor market skills of legal Mexican immigrants. It is also absolutely essential that more effort be made to improve educational opportunities for their children so that they will have the skills necessary to compete in the modern American economy. In the future, the United States should also consider policies designed to reduce unskilled legal immigration in general, including from Mexico. Greater resources should also be devoted to stopping illegal immigration, including enforcement of the ban on hiring illegal aliens.
Guestworker programs are unlikely to solve the problems found in the study. By increasing the supply of unskilled labor, a guestworker program would still adversely effect the wages of the lowest-paid American workers. What’s more, unskilled guestworkers would be overwhelmingly poor or near-poor and thus would pay little in taxes and be likely to receive welfare on behalf of their U.S.-born children, just as many illegal immigrants do today. As a result, a guestworker program would almost certainly create significant fiscal costs. Thus, legalizing illegal aliens -- through a guestworker program, an amnesty, or some combination of the two -- would not change the fundamental problems associated with high levels of unskilled immigration.
-
Between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled Americans is due to the in-migration of low-skilled workers. Many American workers lose their jobs through unfair competition. An estimated 1,880,000 American workers are displaced from their jobs every year by immigration and the cost for providing welfare and assistance to these Americans is over $15 billion a year - FAIR research.
Immigration is a net drain on the economy; corporate interests reap the benefits of cheap labor, while taxpayers pay the infrastructural cost. FAIR research shows "the net annual cost of immigration has been estimated at between $67 and $87 billion a year. The National Academy of Sciences found that the net fiscal drain on American taxpayers is between $166 and $226 a year per native household. Even studies claiming some modest overall gain for the economy from immigration ($1 to $10 billion a year) have found that it is outweighed by the fiscal cost ($15 to $20 billion a year) to native taxpayers."
$60 billion dollars are earned by illegal aliens in the U.S. each year. One of Mexico's largest revenue streams (after exports and oil sales) consists of money sent home by legal immigrants and illegal aliens working in the U.S. Economists say this will help Mexico reduce its $17.8 billion defecit and may bolster the peso. $10 billion dollars are sent back to Mexico annually, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, reported in an Associated Press article, up $800 million from the previous year. ($9 billion dollars were previously sent back annually, according to a September 25, 2002 NPR report). That figure equals what Mexico earns annually from tourism. This massive transfer of wealth from America - essentially from America's displaced working poor - goes directly to Mexico.
-
The final phase of amnesty is retirement. Unlawful immigrants are not currently eligible for Social Security and Medicare, but under amnesty they would become so. The cost of this change would be very large indeed.
As noted, at the current time (before amnesty), the average unlawful immigrant household has a net deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $14,387 per household.
During the interim phase immediately after amnesty, tax payments would increase more than government benefits, and the average fiscal deficit for former unlawful immigrant households would fall to $11,455.
At the end of the interim period, unlawful immigrants would become eligible for means-tested welfare and medical subsidies under Obamacare. Average benefits would rise to $43,900 per household; tax payments would remain around $16,000; the average fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) would be about $28,000 per household.
Amnesty would also raise retirement costs by making unlawful immigrants eligible for Social Security and Medicare, resulting in a net fiscal deficit of around $22,700 per retired amnesty recipient per year.
In terms of public policy and government deficits, an important figure is the aggregate annual deficit for all unlawful immigrant households. This equals the total benefits and services received by all unlawful immigrant households minus the total taxes paid by those households.
Under current law, all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.
In the interim phase (roughly the first 13 years after amnesty), the aggregate annual deficit would fall to $43.4 billion.
At the end of the interim phase, former unlawful immigrant households would become fully eligible for means-tested welfare and health care benefits under the Affordable Care Act. The aggregate annual deficit would soar to around $106 billion.
In the retirement phase, the annual aggregate deficit would be around $160 billion. It would slowly decline as former unlawful immigrants gradually expire.
-
Compelling stuff, SS4U, thanks.
Could you please supply the link so I can see who wrote it as well as the date when it was originally written? -- Not to mention that it's a (fairly commonly unenforced) rule of this board to not copy-pasta without supplying the link.
-
Compelling stuff, SS4U, thanks.
Could you please supply the link so I can see who wrote it as well as the date when it was originally written? -- Not to mention that it's a (fairly commonly unenforced) rule of this board to not copy-pasta without supplying the link.
The information is easily researchable. Get cracking.
-
The information is easily researchable. Get cracking.
'da fuck?
The only reason I can think of for why you're like this is to get your post count up.
(Which benefits me, too, lol.)
-
I notice that when ever you can't formulate a proper rebuttal you resort to this.
he's new; cut him some slack. if we nurture this one properly we can have newer, younger version of 333386 to kick around! ;D
-
'da fuck?
The only reason I can think of for why you're like this is to get your post count up.
(Which benefits me, too, lol.)
Da fuck? You've obviously not looked into the issue or you would have a better understanding.
-
he's new; cut him some slack. if we nurture this one properly we can have newer, younger version of 333386 to kick around! ;D
That's all in your head.
-
Illegal Mexicans cost billions a year, their kids are born to mostly low intelligence peasant parents and intelligence is largely genetic.
Lacking their parents admirable work ethic and raised as entitled little American brat anchors they will drop out of school and not work low wage jobs without benefits like their parents did , instead they will drain the welfare system dry because uneducated, lazy, stupid Americans feel they are owed a better life than what they actually deserve. Anyone arguing otherwise is delusional.
If reps could drop social conservatism, which is nothing to do with actual conservatism or the roots of the party then they might stand a chance but reagans real legacy is that of involving the stupidest , most ignorant voters in politics and destroying the party that fetishizes him
-
Watch that retard RRwhore respond with a "what do you mean?"
rofl
-
Da fuck? You've obviously not looked into the issue or you would have a better understanding.
A better understanding? Ninja, please!
I asked for the source of your copy-pasta about the tax burden of Mexican immigrants (which I even complimented as compelling info).
I'd just like to know the author of the article, the website or publication where it first appeared and the date it was written.
Considering that it's a rule on this board that you're supposed to supply the link when you copy and paste articles, I don't think it's too much to ask.
Here's the relevant rule from the 2nd sticky thread in this subforum ("Rules and Guidelines updated 11-15-12 New Rule Added"):
Forum Rules:
Quoting Sources: If your thread or post uses material created from another source, you must provide a link to the source. Do not post full articles; only copy a portion of the source material with a link to read the rest.
-
rofl
You laughin' at ME?!? >:(
Not sure exactly why Dario said that, actually. He's not the most articulate nor clear-minded guy (read his pathetic fumbling about as he tried to explain why he thought there was no contradiction between God's supposed omniscience and man's free will if you doubt this) so it's not always easy to discern what he's trying to say. Giving him a chance to clarify his posts is a kindness to him, if you ask me.
-
A better understanding? Ninja, please!
I asked for the source of your copy-pasta about the tax burden of Mexican immigrants (which I even complimented as compelling info).
I'd just like to know the author of the article, the website or publication where it first appeared and the date it was written.
Considering that it's a rule on this board that you're supposed to supply the link when you copy and paste articles, I don't think it's too much to ask.
Here's the relevant rule from the 2nd sticky thread in this subforum ("Rules and Guidelines updated 11-15-12 New Rule Added"):
Forum Rules:
Quoting Sources: If your thread or post uses material created from another source, you must provide a link to the source. Do not post full articles; only copy a portion of the source material with a link to read the rest.
the rule is about citing information not proprietary info...have you looked up that term yet or do you need a link to the definition for that?
youre one to talk there bro, you never back up any of the stupidity you run on about and when confronted with facts either run away or deflect, deflect, deflect...
-
the rule is about citing information not proprietary info...have you looked up that term yet or do you need a link to the definition for that?
youre one to talk there bro, you never back up any of the stupidity you run on about and when confronted with facts either run away or deflect, deflect, deflect...
Tony, you are smoking crack. I ALWAYS post links when I copy-pasta parts of articles.
Tony, I'm a SW QA engineer -- I know what proprietary means. (The way you used it was kinda strange so I asked you what you meant, so sue me.)
And, anyway, are you seriously suggesting that StreetSoldier4U might have authored all that? (The same guy who has such trouble with homophones and homonyms?) Uh, no fucking way.
I'll bet you 1 million dollars he did not author the article in question. I'd sooner believe that you were the 10-time judo world champion -- who gold medaled in boxing during your off-season, lol.
Here's about a third of the article that he posted; Take a look and tell me again that you think he might have written this:
y increasing the supply of unskilled labor, Mexican immigration in the 1990s has reduced the wages of workers without a high school education by an estimated 5 percent. The workers affected are already the lowest-paid, comprising a large share of the working poor and those trying to move from welfare to work.
This reduction in wages for the unskilled has likely reduced prices for consumers by only an estimated .08 to .2 percent in the 1990s. The impact is so small because unskilled labor accounts for only a tiny fraction of total economic output.
Author Steven Camarota said of the findings, "Mexican immigration is overwhelmingly unskilled, and it is hard to make an economic argument for unskilled immigration, because it tends to reduce wages for workers who are already the lowest paid and whose real wages actually declined in the 1990s. Moreover, this cheap labor comes with a high cost. Because the modern American economy offers very limited opportunities for workers with little education, continued unskilled immigration cannot help but to significantly increase the size of the poor and uninsured populations, as well as the number of people using welfare."
Because of their much lower education levels, Mexican immigrants earn significantly less than natives on average. This results in lower average tax payments and heavier use of means-tested programs. Based on estimates developed by the National Academy of Sciences for immigrants by age and education at arrival, the lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a negative $55,200.
Although they comprise 4.2 percent of the nation’s total population, Mexican immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) account for 10.2 percent of all persons in poverty and 12.5 percent of those without health insurance. Even among Mexican immigrant families that have lived in United States for more than 20 years, almost all of whom are legal residents, more than half live in or near poverty and one-third are uninsured
Even after welfare reform, an estimated 34 percent of households headed by legal Mexican immigrants and 25 percent headed by illegal Mexican immigrants used at least one major welfare program, in contrast to 15 percent of native households. Mexican immigrants who have lived in the United States for more than 20 years, almost all of whom are legal residents, still have double the welfare use rate of natives.
Mexican immigration acts as a subsidy to businesses that employ unskilled workers, holding down labor costs while taxpayers pick up the costs of providing services to a much larger poor and low-income population.
The lower educational attainment of Mexican immigrants appears to persist across the generations. The high school dropout rates of native-born Mexican-Americans (both second and third generation) are two and a half times that of other natives.
Policy Recommendations:
The United States needs to consider programs designed to improve the labor market skills of legal Mexican immigrants. It is also absolutely essential that more effort be made to improve educational opportunities for their children so that they will have the skills necessary to compete in the modern American economy. In the future, the United States should also consider policies designed to reduce unskilled legal immigration in general, including from Mexico. Greater resources should also be devoted to stopping illegal immigration, including enforcement of the ban on hiring illegal aliens.
Guestworker programs are unlikely to solve the problems found in the study. By increasing the supply of unskilled labor, a guestworker program would still adversely effect the wages of the lowest-paid American workers. What’s more, unskilled guestworkers would be overwhelmingly poor or near-poor and thus would pay little in taxes and be likely to receive welfare on behalf of their U.S.-born children, just as many illegal immigrants do today. As a result, a guestworker program would almost certainly create significant fiscal costs. Thus, legalizing illegal aliens -- through a guestworker program, an amnesty, or some combination of the two -- would not change the fundamental problems associated with high levels of unskilled immigration.
-
Tony, you are smoking crack. I ALWAYS post links when I copy-pasta parts of articles.
Tony, I'm a SW QA engineer -- I know what proprietary means. (The way you used it was kinda strange so I asked you what you meant, so sue me.)
what is copy-pasta? second time youve used it...new bodybuilding food perhaps?
I dont really care what you are the way I used proprietary wasnt unusual at all....
LOL im guessing he didnt write all that and he should post a link I hope you are this up in arms when your libtard bretheren do it which they do all the time.
You can complain all you want and cite the rules but it wont change anything people copy and past without citing their shit here all the time.
-
what is copy-pasta? second time youve used it...new bodybuilding food perhaps?
I dont really care what you are the way I used proprietary wasnt unusual at all....
LOL im guessing he didnt write all that and he should post a link I hope you are this up in arms when your libtard bretheren do it which they do all the time.
You can complain all you want and cite the rules but it wont change anything people copy and past without citing their shit here all the time.
It wasn't unusual to say (something to the effect of) "I have a proprietary way of processing information in my head"? (Like most people use a standard open-source protocol but you use your own his own special-recipe proprietary method which you'll detail once you get the patent?) Ok, champ, we'll just have to agree to disagree about that being unusual.
Thanks for admitting that he probably didn't author that article. I'm not "up in arms" (unless you're talking about how swole my guns are) about it though, just mystified about why he'd not want to give up the source when it's technically a rule of this site.
I read the whole thing he posted. I told him I thought it was compelling. (This is a compliment.) Then I politely asked for the link while informing him that supplying the link is technically a rule of this forum and he answered by telling me to find out myself. I expressed surprise at his response and he made some irrelevant comment about me needing to familiarize myself with the subject more. End of story.
Why this needs to be spoon-fed to you is probably because you don't really care enough about what happened to read back in the thread or something. Not that you'd let that stop you from commenting, though, right? ;D
-
It wasn't unusual to say (something to the effect of) "I have a proprietary way of processing information in my head"? (Like most people use a standard open-source protocol but you use your own his own special-recipe proprietary method which you'll detail once you get the patent?) Ok, champ, we'll just have to agree to disagree about that being unusual.
no it wasnt
Proprietary information, proprietary processes etc...proprietary is used in conjunction with them all the time so I dont know how someone would feel that is unusual but I guess you have not been exposed to those situations very often so who knows maybe it is unusual to you.
-
no it wasnt
Proprietary information, proprietary processes etc...proprietary is used in conjunction with them all the time so I dont know how someone would feel that is unusual but I guess you have not been exposed to those situations very often so who knows maybe it is unusual to you.
Fair enough.
BTW, did you see the UFC on Fox the other day? Erick Silva from Brazil who has black belts in Judo and BJJ put a serious beatdown on another Judo black belt (Sato). It was notable for a new technique: When Sato went for a low-single, with his head on the outside of Silva's leg, Silva held him in place with his hands while heel kicking his head with his other leg using what they're calling "hackey-sack" kicks. It was good (but one-sided) stuff.
More Judo-related UFC stuff: Next week Judo's pride and joy UFC champ Ronda Rousey (silver medalist at the Olympics) will fight Olympic silver medalist (in freestyle wrestling) Sara McMann. Might be a good fight...
Judo is obviously a great base skill for MMA.
-
Fair enough.
BTW, did you see the UFC on Fox the other day? Erick Silva from Brazil who has black belts in Judo and BJJ put a serious beatdown on another Judo black belt (Sato). It was notable for a new technique: When Sato went for a low-single, with his head on the outside of Silva's leg, Silva held him in place with his hands while heel kicking his head with his other leg using what they're calling "hackey-sack" kicks. It was good (but one-sided) stuff.
More Judo-related UFC stuff: Next week Judo's pride and joy UFC champ Ronda Rousey (silver medalist at the Olympics) will fight Olympic silver medalist (in freestyle wrestling) Sara McMann. Might be a good fight...
Judo is obviously a great base skill for MMA.
No I stopped following MMA years ago. Judo is a good base skill especially competitive judo for modern MMA. There are plenty of better ones that allow for more ground work which translates alot easier and judo throws are not that useful in MMA although I have seen rhonda use them quite a bit. Most people in that realm know how to fall and judo throws dont do much damage especially if they person being thrown knows how to fall correctly and as its on a padded mat.
Good to see some former judo people doing good though especially after the early days of the UFC where they got murdered LOL.
-
what is copy-pasta? second time youve used it...new bodybuilding food perhaps?
I dont really care what you are the way I used proprietary wasnt unusual at all....
LOL im guessing he didnt write all that and he should post a link I hope you are this up in arms when your libtard bretheren do it which they do all the time.
You can complain all you want and cite the rules but it wont change anything people copy and past without citing their shit here all the time.
He complained to Ron
-
He complained to Ron
Lol kore did you complain to Ron?
-
Why are libtards bringing up posting rules?
This is what happens when a liberal is confronted. All they do is bring up crap that has nothing to do with the main topic.
Idiots.
-
Lol kore did you complain to Ron?
Hells yeah.
I used the "Report to Moderator" soft button (which I thought would go to Ozmo or BB, actually, but whateva).
Here's exactly what I wrote (and I wrote nothing more) in the dialog box that displayed after I hit the button:
Is the following rule still in effect?: Quoting Sources: If your thread or post uses material created from another source, you must provide a link to the source. Do not post full articles; only copy a portion of the source material with a link to read the rest.
Look, Tony, SS4U isn't like you or me. We (and even guys like Dario, actually) use insults too much but I think it's clear we give a shit about different political arguments and are here to talk about 'em.
Seemingly, he's here (most of the time, anyway) to get into little spats with folks after posting a couple of sentences at a time and by doing so he's adding very little value to the forum while maybe driving some away. Therefore, I don't think he deserves much consideration or latitude when he steps over the line.
It's a little ironic that one of the very few times that he DID post something worthwhile was what caused him to get reported (because he refused to supply the link to the source).
Oh, well. I think he's gonna live.
-
Why are libtards bringing up posting rules?
This is what happens when a liberal is confronted. All they do is bring up crap that has nothing to do with the main topic.
Idiots.
Snitches get stitches? lol
-
In other words he was butthurt and complained. Meanwhile, he feels comfortable breaking the rules by threatening me with physical violence. I reported this to the moderators. I figured if he was so concerned about rules he would want me to report him.
-
In other words he was butthurt and complained. Meanwhile, he feels comfortable breaking the rules by threatening me with physical violence. I reported this to the moderators. I figured if he was so concerned about rules he would want me to report him.
LOL. What did Ron say to you? Can't have been too bad since you're still here.
-
LOL. What did Ron say to you? Can't have been too bad since you're still here.
He was great. A very nice man.
-
Hells yeah.
I used the "Report to Moderator" soft button (which I thought would go to Ozmo or BB, actually, but whateva).
Here's exactly what I wrote (and I wrote nothing more) in the dialog box that displayed after I hit the button:
Is the following rule still in effect?: Quoting Sources: If your thread or post uses material created from another source, you must provide a link to the source. Do not post full articles; only copy a portion of the source material with a link to read the rest.
Look, Tony, SS4U isn't like you or me. We (and even guys like Dario, actually) use insults too much but I think it's clear we give a shit about different political arguments and are here to talk about 'em.
Seemingly, he's here (most of the time, anyway) to get into little spats with folks after posting a couple of sentences at a time and by doing so he's adding very little value to the forum while maybe driving some away. Therefore, I don't think he deserves much consideration or latitude when he steps over the line.
It's a little ironic that one of the very few times that he DID post something worthwhile was what caused him to get reported (because he refused to supply the link to the source).
Oh, well. I think he's gonna live.
Lol you're fairly new here so you may not know this but the politics board is a bit of a different animal. Many of the posters on the poli board don't or very rarely post on other boards outside of the politics board. It's a pretty tight knit group and even though we have major differences we generally all get along on a basic level. I think it's because of that there is an unspoken rule about keeping our shit in house.
-
Why are libtards bringing up posting rules?
This is what happens when a liberal is confronted. All they do is bring up crap that has nothing to do with the main topic.
Idiots.
Uh because they're not liberals? The majority of self identifying liberals (and 100% of democrat party line hacks) are actually authoritarians who want authority figures to make other people do what they want.
Nothing at all like a classic liberal , the word is as meaningless as "conservative" in today's contexts
-
Uh because they're not liberals? The majority of self identifying liberals (and 100% of democrat party line hacks) are actually authoritarians who want authority figures to make other people do what they want.
Nothing at all like a classic liberal , the word is as meaningless as "conservative" in today's contexts
Absorutery. Except I don't want an authority figure to force others to do what I want; I want to do it myself; If I can be the authority, I will be the first to denounce liberalism.
Nah, maybe it has absolutely nothing to do with politics and is just folks trying to get their way, ya know?
Wouldn't you agree that on a personal level, folks of ALL political stripes often act this way?