Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 570
|
|
2
|
Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: are you convinced ronnie coleman was the top of his class in college accounting?
|
on: June 18, 2013, 06:39:35 PM
|
Grambling State University, where Coleman went to school, is what's called a "historically black college." It is not exactly known for its academic rigor. The required standardized test scores for admission are quite low and the 4-year graduation rate is well below 10 percent (even the 6-year graduation rate is low). Coleman may have done well academically, but coming out of Grambling I wouldn't be very impressed.
The admissions and test scores are lower at historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), because those institutions see themselves as giving people a shot at a college education, even if they weren't top students.
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: The Hispanic vote isn't as large as Republicans believe
|
on: June 16, 2013, 03:47:11 PM
|
You seem fixated on the Hispanic vote, which is fair enough given the title of this thread. But you don't address the gender gap and the fact that affluent whites in states like CA, NY, etc., who have influence due to their financial and social status, don't feel comfortable in the GOP. (This is also what's going on in VA.)
I don't care either way since I don't vote and only financially support candidates (of either party) who will directly advocate for my business interests, but I think the trends are obvious and pretty clear.
The rich people in CA and NY don't feel comfortable in the GOP, for a number of reasons (usually social ones). Plus, it also depends on how they got rich. If their riches are due to public-sector work or so-called "non-profit" deals, they tend to lean towards the Democrats. Getting rich via "green" energy: Democrats. Getting rich via fossil fuels: Republicans Getting rich via TV and cable media: Democrats; Getting rich via talk radio: Republicans Or, if you dive into music..... Rap, R&B, Rock-n-roll, Pop, Gospel: Democrats; Country, Southern Gospel, Contemporary Christian: Republicans.
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Why is glenn beck still on the radio
|
on: June 16, 2013, 03:14:48 PM
|
dude is always like talking in this voice of being mentally unstable and in crisis mode always flipping into modes of talking slow and super serious and begging and pleading ect
i thought they fired him then flipping through the radio they brought him back, dude SUCKS
it was kinda interesting a couple years back but it started being always the same thing everyshow
He can't be "fired" in the purest sense. The issue is his being under contract with a company that will broadcast his show and how many stations that company owns. My guess is that Cumulus radio network decided to drop him on certain stations they own, as they've done with Rush Limbaugh. But, both are on ClearChannel which owns way more stations than Cumulus does. What probably happened is that he got dropped from a Cumulus station in your area. ClearChannel acquired a rival radio station and started airing Beck's show.
|
|
|
|
|
5
|
Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: The Hispanic vote isn't as large as Republicans believe
|
on: June 15, 2013, 09:04:31 PM
|
Not quite. Not sure where u came up with the 4 million figure but it wouldn't have done Romney much good to run up his margin of victory in states like GA, SC, MS, TX, etc. The electoral college would have still gone Obama's way because of states like CA and NY and the fact that former swing states like VA are now swinging Democratic due to demographic changes, which aren't all attributable to Hispanics. Yes, so-called Hispanics are part of it but so are other people of color, affluent whites everywhere but the deep south, women, gays, etc. The GOP has little attraction to these people.
The Reagan/Bush years are long, long, since over (we have gay marriage all over the place now, that would have been unheard of during the Reagan/Bush era). Do u think another Republican will ever win CA or NY (like Reagan did)? The electoral map is very difficult for national GOP candidates now. If the Hispanic vote in TX ever gains traction, and puts TX into play, there will never be another GOP president again. One thing the article completely misses is that even if the percentage of the Hispanic vote remains low, sheer numbers alone will make it a force to reckon with. The white population is aging and the birthdate is low. It's the complete opposite with the Hispanic population. Blacks will be in the worst shape. They will be passed by Hispanics as the número uno "minority" group and if prison is any barometer, Hispanics are merciless towards coloreds when they gain the upper hand over them.
And you're right, issues do matter to some extent. Abortion has sunk the national GOP with women voters since the 70s. There are no longer enough white males to counteract this. The gay marriage issue will alienate young voters from the national GOP since most young people don't have a problem with it. In some ways it's the new abortion issue.
IMO neither Romney or Obama convinced anyone to vote for them. People just voted the way they figured they were supposed to. The same way there was nothing Obama could say to convince a 70 year-old white man from rural Georgia to vote for him, there was no way Romney could convince a 40year-old affluent white woman living in Manhattan to vote for him. It's all about demographics and the trends aren't good for the GOP long-term.
What makes you think that those who stayed home were merely in states that Romney would have won easily? Obama's margin was small in certain key swing state. It all came down to turnout. The reason Virginia is turning blue is because liberals from DC and Maryland, after screwing up those states with superhigh taxes and ludicrous laws, AVOID those very things by moving to northern VA. The Dems want to stay in power by making blacks and Latinos PERMANENT underclasses, which is why they're so high on amnesty and other programs that keep them dependent on government. That is why Dems have a stranglehold on states like CA and NY. Per the exit polls, the primary reason Latinos vote Democrat is NOT immigration. It's government programs, that supposedly help them. According to Pew Research Center, nearly SEVENTY percent of Hispanics like ObamaCare as is or want it expanded further. http://www.cis.org/mortensen/hispanics-were-democrats-long-illegal-immigration-became-issue
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Minorities in this country have no reason to not flourish...
|
on: June 15, 2013, 05:16:20 PM
|
LOL...What is is this? So Because I'm black and a vet (btw, I am "disabled" vet, have the card and everything), I also have a bachelor's degree. So with al those things plus the 10 years of being in the Air Force I can start my own company and get to the top or near the top because of black, vet, and disabled part?
Not quite! You get a definite look, if you're looking to work on a government project. Think of it as the Rooney Rule in football, applied to city, county, state, and federal jobs. By law, a certain percentages of contractors have to be DBEs, unless you can pull off a Sole Source Justification. It's part of these uber-thick pubs, known as the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: The Hispanic vote isn't as large as Republicans believe
|
on: June 15, 2013, 04:35:27 PM
|
The country has changed dramatically since the 60s. Romney and the GOP lost at the national level because the demographics have changed. If the GOP wants to win nationally, it is somehow going to have to figure out how to attract more women voters, more non-white voters, and more gay voters. Continuing to rely on its base of white, heterosexual males, is not going to be a winning formula going forward. It's not about issues. It's about demographics. When u say things like the "dems are the party of racism" u turn off women, moderate voters, non-whites, etc., and are basically dooming the GOP to minority party status.
Hardly! 4 million Republicans stayed home. Romney had fewer voters than McCain did. If he'd simply MATCH McCain's tally, he'd be president right now. One study claimed Romney would have needed 73% of the Latino vote to beat Obama, with the numbers he had among white voters. As for dramatic change since the 60s, did you forget that Reagan and Bush I won LANDSLIDE elections, despite getting no more than 35% of the Latino vote, on average? Bush only got 30% of the Latino vote, DESPITE Reagan granting full-blown unapologetic amnesty to Latinos, just 2 years earlier. It is about issues; it's about relating conservative principles and how they, not liberal ones, address those issues. Romney thought that just the economy being sorry was enough to get people to turn on Obama. All Obama did (with plenty of help) is con those people into believing that his failure to live up to his promises wasn't really his fault. Plus, you forget that politics can change on a dime (as I learned some time ago). Go back 8 years. Did ANYONE believe we'd be where we are after Bush got re-elected and the GOP got more seats in Congress? The Dems are all about amnesty, because the more broke Latinos we have, the more government-dependent they are; thus, the more they vote Democrat. If Latinos voted GOP, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et. al. would ROUND THEM ALL UP PERSONALLY and haul them back to Mexico/Cuba/DR on the first thing smoking.
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Minorities in this country have no reason to not flourish...
|
on: June 15, 2013, 04:17:18 PM
|
And if they don't, it is because they are lazy or no one has told them what I am about to post. I hope that some of you guys take some of this info, and better yourselves. I am only posting this after reading this post in another thread:
Andre, not an attack on you, as I am sure you were joking, but it seems to be the thought of at least a few minorities. Well, here it goes.
As a minority in this country, or someone who is deemed as a disadvantaged person(basically anyone who isn't a white male) you are eligible for certain programs through the governments programs to be put at the top of the list for when they are advertising construction projects, or procuring any services in general, i.e. janitorial services, painting, buying widgets or whatever. For instance, there is a program called disadvantaged business enterprise, or DBE, that allows for certain percentages of DOT projects across the US to have a minority goal of subcontractors, usually around 12%, and if the contractor who is bidding the project, even if his/her number is low, their bid is thrown out for not meeting the standard. It is very easy to do, you just have to apply in each state, and every state has the program. You will literally be guaranteed work. I have subcontracted on projects before, where the DBE number on a certain scope of work was higher than mine, and it was still given to them because they were trying to meet the goal. Average size of my contracts are about $300,000 so you see where there can be a lot of waste on these contractors, especially if they are not capable of doing the work, which in some cases does happen because of the goals being so high, they get the contractors to take on more than they are capable of to meet the requirement. But, can you blame the guys, someone tries to give you a ,million dollar contract, what are you going to say, no? There are also programs working for the federal government, like 8(a), disabled veteran that are a bit harder to get, but you are guaranteed years worth of work, and get this, most of it is negotiated where you are guaranteed at least 20% margins. Also, the more minority you are, the farther up the chain you go. Say for instance, the holy grail is a native American female disabled veteran. You are going to get people trying to find you just so they can give you money. The Inuits in Alaska have a company under the umbrella corp. of Tikigaq which is given so much work it's not funny.
So, basically, someone like Wiggs, who is a black man, who served in the armed forces I believe ( if you can prove you were somewhat disabled, like a bit of hearing loss, hurt yourself in jump school) you can start a construction company and literally make yourself some serious coin. I'm just trying to do my part, to try and help people with a little knowledge that they may have not otherwise known. You can thank me later.
You are speaking the truth. I work(ed) in contracting and engineering; so I know firsthand that, when government (city, county, state, or federal) is looking for work to be done, those on the government side MUST look at disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs) FIRST. That means: Black-owned businesses, women-owned businesses, small businesses, veteran-owned businesses, businesses that use heavy disabled-folk labor, HBCUs.....and I wouldn't be surprised if gays and lesbians have been tacked onto that list. The only way out of that is if you can pull off a sob story, known as a "Sole Source Jusitification", and have the right folk to sell the pitch to a government board. Otherwise, if you're a black-Latino, half-blind, crippled, lesbian midget who owns a business, you get first crack at government projects....BY LAW. And the contractors have to do the same thing for the subcontractors they want to employ. It's almost to the point where we'll have signs that says Able-bodies heterosexual white dudes with big businesses need not apply!Well, this gentleman seems to have an interesting view on this subject ( Warning: this guy is as un-PC as it gets; language is RAW and real....but funny)!
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: none of these "pro bbers" and "training gurus" know wtf they are talking about
|
on: June 15, 2013, 01:40:58 PM
|
AAAAHHHH!!!!! Herein lies your problem. You mistakenly think "go heavy" means merely one-rep max. That's not the concept, unless you're a powerlifter (based on your shots at CT Fletcher, that's not a goal of yours). Going heavy usually means the most poundage you can move, WITH GOOD FORM, for 6-8 reps. Once a month, SURE, go for a one-rep max. But, for the most part, stick with that rep range.
|
|
|
|
|
15
|
Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Wife just had babies! But is lifting over???
|
on: June 15, 2013, 01:36:35 PM
|
Yeah, this is not 1950. Women are starting to have better jobs and making more than men. And as time elapses, this will occur at a greater amount.
But, more women are dropping OUT of the workforce to stay home and raise babies (which has many feminists going nuts  ). My wife went nearly a decade without working full-time, once we got married.
|
|
|
|
|
16
|
Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: Wife just had babies! But is lifting over???
|
on: June 15, 2013, 01:34:04 PM
|
How do new parents do it? Babies are up every 2 hours, getting no sleep. Can barely even get to work in the morning, just so out of it. Then while home they require 24 hour care and monitoring. I lost 10 pounds in the last week and there is no way I can go to the gym. Even if I could, I have no energy, and then without sleep it would all be worthless anyway!
Any advice?
Simple. PRIORITIZE!!!! 1) Wake up earlier to go to the gym; go later when the babies are asleep; or invest in a home gym. 2) COOK enough food to make your breakfast meals and lunch meals for AT LEAST THREE DAYS. 3) Your shaker bottle should have purple heart medals. When you can't eat your meals, DRINK THEM, especially at work. I've been married almost 11 years with two kids born during that time. It ain't that hard. Remember Bill Pearl won multiple Mr. Universe titles, with a wife and family. And, Lee Haney won 8 Sandows under those same circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
20
|
Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: none of these "pro bbers" and "training gurus" know wtf they are talking about
|
on: June 15, 2013, 01:22:51 PM
|
doesnt change the fact they made those real good gains by lifting heavy
You don't like lifting heavy, per your previous posts. Plus, the point you keep missing is that, EVEN IF you do, the target muscle must do the lion's share of the work. It's been stated repeatedly that there's a difference between lifting heavy (with the intended muscles getting the bulk of the work) and lifting heavy (nearly every muscle BUT the targeted one, getting the stress). That's why you have guys who can push 400 or 500 plus, yet have pancake-sized pecs. One example that comes to mind was a pro wrestler from back in the day, the late Ray "Hercules" Hernandez.
|
|
|
|
|
22
|
Getbig Main Boards / Gossip & Opinions / Re: none of these "pro bbers" and "training gurus" know wtf they are talking about
|
on: June 15, 2013, 01:16:50 PM
|
yes, i also see a lot of contradictions in ronnie's stories and theories
i guess bb training is just doing whatever and giving some pseudo theoretical explanation to it
No, it's not. It's trial and error. It's using principles as a foundation, keeping what works, and scrapping what doesn't work. And, as the saying goes, nearly everything works but not everything works indefinitely. That's because your body doesn't stay static. Do you think I train the same way in my 40s that I did in my 20s? Do you think I eat the same way now as I did nearly a two decades ago? It's standard procedure to hear guys (when they're younger) swear you need to lift everything that ain't nailed down, only to have a change of heart as the years (and perhaps the INJURIES) pile up.
|
|
|
|
|
24
|
Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Time for Liberals to ADMIT - Obama is worse than W
|
on: June 15, 2013, 01:03:42 PM
|
shut up already. Bush fucking tanked the economy, losing crazy amounts of jobs, Obama has it going in the other direction with the stock market soaring, house are coming back up I price etc. To compare them is to be an idiot.
Obstensibly the worst congress in history.
Take your own advice. You're crediting Bush with tanking the economy, even though the tanking occured when the DEMS ran Congress. Yet, you want to credit with Obama having it "going in the other direction", even though whatever that other direction is only happened when the Dems lost the House. If this is the "worst" Congress in history, the Dems share equal blame because they run the Senate. And, we've already seen what happens when they run both halves of Congress, under Obama. Ironicially enough, all the people Obama was supposed to help, that voted for him, ARE BEING CRUCIFIED by his very policies (blacks, Latinos, young people, women). Check the unemployment rates on those. Half of college grads can't get jobs in their field. Black unemployment is at highs not seen in decades. And, thanks to the garbage ObamaCare, people of all stripes are getting laid off or their hours reduced, left and right. And, if that weren't bad enough, the very imbeciles that gave us this swill (ObamaCare) are BREAKING THEIR NECKS to exempt themselves from it: Congressman, senators, public-sector unions, etc.).
|
|
|
|
|
25
|
Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Dems 22 GOP 0
|
on: June 15, 2013, 01:01:03 PM
|
LMAO!!
republican policies have always caused the economy to go in the shitter. The fact that you can say this with bush's failure is ironic.
You mean like the Republican policies passed during the CLINTON years, when the GOP ran Congress for six of Clinton's eight years in office?
|
|
|
|
|