Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 30, 2014, 10:23:46 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 257
1  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Impeachment? Hahahaha on: Today at 02:46:09 PM
Just imagine how much the next president - no matter what political party - is going to abuse the shit out of the office/law, knowing darn well if they didn't impeach obama, and they didn't impeach Bush, their ass is probably safe too.

Exactly.  IMO, Chris Christie is already benefiting from the level of stupidity libs have brought in.  Stop holding the POTUS to the highest of standards and expecting him to be responsible for people in his admin, and the shit just rolls down hill.

2  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Please contact your Congress Person and ask them to support Rand's Bill. on: Today at 02:41:55 PM

I think...maybe...we can all agree that the abuse of civil forfeiture should be curbed - regardless of political leaning.

Rand Paul introduces bill to reform civil asset forfeiture

This is a pretty big deal, especially if Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) can round up enough co-sponsors to build some momentum.

Sen. Rand Paul yesterday introduced S. 2644, the FAIR (Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration) Act, which would protect the rights of citizens and restore the Fifth Amendment’s role in seizing property without due process of law. Under current law, law enforcement agencies may take property suspected of involvement in crime without ever charging, let alone convicting, the property owner. In addition, state agencies routinely use federal asset forfeiture laws; ignoring state regulations to confiscate and receive financial proceeds from forfeited property.

The FAIR Act would change federal law and protect the rights of property owners by requiring that the government prove its case with clear and convincing evidence before forfeiting seized property.

The bill would also require states “to abide by state law when forfeiting seized property.” This is important. Currently, a number of state legislatures across the country have passed reform bills to rein in forfeiture abuses. The problem is that the federal government has a program known as “adoption” or “equitable sharing.” Under the program, a local police agency need only call up the Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or similar federal agency. That agency then “federalizes” the investigation, making it subject to federal law. The federal agency then initiates forfeiture proceedings under the laxer federal guidelines for forfeiture. The feds take a cut and then return the rest — as much as 80 percent — back to the local agency. This trick thwarts the intent of state legislature that have attempted to make civil forfeiture more fair when it comes to burden of proof, protections for innocent property owners and eliminating the perverse incentive of allowing forfeiture proceeds to go to the same police agency that made the seizure.

Which brings us to a final important provision in the bill: It would “would remove the profit incentive for forfeiture by redirecting forfeitures assets from the Attorney General’s Asset Forfeiture Fund to the Treasury’s General Fund.” Read the full text of the bill here.

Paul, along with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), appears to be walking the walk when it comes to criminal justice reform. In addition to the redemption bill he and Booker co-sponsored that I wrote about a few weeks ago, Paul also recently introduced a bill that would bar the federal government from prosecuting medical marijuana patients in states where medical marijuana is legal.

I’ve seen some critics on social media and elsewhere point out that Paul appears to be positioning himself for a presidential run, so this may just all be part of his run-up to 2016. As I wrote in my prior post, I’m skeptical of the notion. This particular bill notwithstanding (civil asset forfeiture is extremely unpopular, and there is actually a history of Republican-led reform on this issue), it seems unlikely that most of these reforms are going to help Paul in the Republican primaries. And as Emily Bazelon has pointed out, it isn’t at all clear how a policy such as restoring voting rights to felons would benefit Republicans. It’s far more likely to hurt them. It seems to me that Paul is actually leading on these issues.

But even if Paul’s reform crusade is all political posturing, so what? If these bills pass and result in needed reforms, I doubt that the former prisoners with restored voting rights, the victims of forfeiture abuse or the ex-inmates who can now pursue a second chance at life with a clean record will care much about the motivations of the sponsors of the bills that made those things happen.

More encouraging, think about what this allegation that Paul is posturing really means. In 1996, the House speaker sponsored a bill that would have allowed for the execution of marijuana distributors. That former speaker, Newt Gingrich, more recently advocated for prison reform. (Aside: It’s worth noting that Gingrich is all over the place on these issues — in the same year that he wrote the linked op-ed, he praised the draconian drug policies of Singapore, where drug dealers can face mandatory execution.) A U.S. president who left office as recently as 1992 once suggested something similar.

Today, two states have decriminalized marijuana, at least two more will soon vote on the matter, and not only is a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination introducing bills to dramatically reform the criminal justice system, some of his critics are suggesting that he’s only doing so because it is politically popular. That’s a huge amount of progress in a short amount of time.

3  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberal Hypocrisy on: Today at 02:36:26 PM
I've made Bum my bitch so many times that he knows he's better off ignoring me than getting his ass handed to him again.

How come nobody's ever seen that?

In fact, usually we see you dangling from his ball sack, pathetically desperate for him to even acknowledge your existence, endlessly hoping he'll toss you a word or phrase here and there.

Kinda pathetic really.

And creepy...
4  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Police State - Official Thread on: July 28, 2014, 06:32:40 PM
Of course she should have been 100% subservient. Anything less is undemocratic according to NYPD Commissioner Bratton who said: "It's important that when an officer does approach you to correct your behavior, that you respect them. That's what democracy's all about." (source)

Yeah, you read that right. I have just one question: WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED TO THIS COUNTRY AND ITS PEOPLE?!?

I was not aware...thank you and unfuckingreal!

Poldaktalos - yes, enormous bullshit and complete hypocrisy.

5  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Police State - Official Thread on: July 28, 2014, 05:40:23 PM
Lawsuit: CHP officer falsified reports after being filmed pummelling 51-year-old woman

California Highway Patrol Officer Daniel L. Andrew straddled 51-year-old Marlene Pinnock and punched her for 10 to 15 seconds on July 1 before arresting the homeless woman, the lawsuit stated.

Andrew falsified reports of the incident, omitting his repeated punching, and saying Pinnock was combative and called him the devil, according to the lawsuit, which was filed July 17.

CHP officials are also accused of using a felony search warrant to obtain Pinnock’s medical records, which include private conversations between herself, her doctors and her lawyers.

She called him the devil.  She clearly contributed to her own beating.  She should've been 100% subservient...that would've stopped the abuse.

Oh boy...
6  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Illegals demand representation in White House meetings on: July 28, 2014, 04:56:39 PM
I'm going to Mexico City and demanding representation... lol

Illegal immigrants plan to picket the White House Monday afternoon, calling on fellow immigrant-rights advocacy groups to refuse to meet with the Obama administration until President Obama specifically includes illegal immigrants in any future meetings.

“We are among the millions of people who will either benefit or be harmed by the decisions the President makes, and we are here to represent ourselves in any future negotiations,” said Rosi Carrasco, one of organizers, in a statement announcing the action.

Read more:
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

I'm surprised he hasn't apologized to them for how horrible this country is.  Then thank them for all wanting to come here.

7  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Police State - Official Thread on: July 28, 2014, 04:52:04 PM
July 21, 2014 6:10 PM
It’s Time for Conservatives to Stop Defending Police
There is nothing conservative about government violating the rights of citizens.

By A. J. Delgado

Imagine if I were to tell you there is a large group of government employees, with generous salaries and ridiculously cushy retirement pensions covered by the taxpayer, who enjoy incredible job security and are rarely held accountable even for activities that would almost certainly earn the rest of us prison time. When there is proven misconduct, these government employees are merely reassigned and are rarely dismissed. The bill for any legal settlements concerning their errors? It, too, is covered by the taxpayers. Their unions are among the strongest in the country.

No, I’m not talking about public-school teachers.

I’m talking about the police.

We conservatives recoil at the former; yet routinely defend the latter — even though, unlike teachers, police officers enjoy an utter monopoly on force and can ruin — or end — one’s life in a millisecond.

For decades, conservatives have served as stalwart defenders of police forces. There have been many good reasons for this, including long memories of the post-countercultural crime wave that devastated, and in some cases destroyed, many American cities; conservatives’ penchant for law and order; and Americans’ widely shared disdain for the cops’ usual opponents. (“Dirty hippies being arrested? Good!” is not an uncommon sentiment.) Although tough-on-crime appeals have never been limited to conservative politicians or voters, conservatives instinctively (and, it turned out, correctly) understood that the way to reduce crime is to have more cops making more arrests, not more sociologists identifying more root causes. Conservatives are rightly proud to have supported police officers doing their jobs at times when progressives were on the other side.

But it’s time for conservatives’ unconditional love affair with the police to end.

Let’s get the obligatory disclaimer out of the way: Yes, many police officers do heroic works and, yes, many are upstanding individuals who serve the community bravely and capably.

But respecting good police work means being willing to speak out against civil-liberties-breaking thugs who shrug their shoulders after brutalizing citizens.

More of this great read here:

Times may be a changing.  Hell, on this thread it's almost exclusively people on the right, right leaning, or libertarian leaning against the creeping police state.

My currently unproven, untested, but probably accurate theory is the libs love the police state....especially when they can use it to enforce compliance.  But, to listen to Peter King talk is basically an endorsement for an even greater police state (his interview with Stossel is sickening).  We're fucked all around.

8  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: 16 for '16: The Most Talked-About Potential GOP Presidential Candidates on: July 28, 2014, 04:36:41 PM
but if he's not supported by Fox News he won't stand a chance.

So Fox supported Obama...twice.  Interesting.  Probably why I don't care for them too much.

9  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: 5 NYPD cops choke unarmed man to death on: July 23, 2014, 05:34:01 PM

On a related note, what IS an INDISPUTABLE FACT, is that come October 20, the Steelers will bring excessive force and pain down on the Texans.
10  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: 5 NYPD cops choke unarmed man to death on: July 23, 2014, 04:36:10 PM
im not blaming him for their excessive actions, their actions where wrong no matter what. Fact of the matter is without his actions of refusing orders and resisting arrest none of that would have occured.

He helped create the enviroment where a physical altercation was needed. AGAIN THERE IS NO DENYING THIS

First, that's not a fact, that's your assumption.

You can never know what might have happened.  I thought you were pushing for us to be 'intellectually honest'.

Second, necessitating an escalation in force is not contributing to his own death.  In fact, it happens all the time, every day, throughout the world....and these people are not attempting to get themselves killed, lol.

We're just running in circles now, so have at the last word.
11  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: 5 NYPD cops choke unarmed man to death on: July 23, 2014, 04:06:40 PM
Too late for that, nobody seems to understand you can condemn both his actions and the cops actions.

This has nothing to do with condemning his actions.  I don't think he should have resisted - unless the arrest was unlawful.

But that's not the issue here.

The issue is your attempt to blame the victim for the actions of the abuser.

12  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: 5 NYPD cops choke unarmed man to death on: July 23, 2014, 04:04:36 PM
LMFAO I am in no way defending the cops. I am being intellectually honest is all.

A man has no right to get physical with his woman. The cops DO!!!!

Now the amount of physical force was OBVIOUSLY excessive that doesnt excuse the man escalating the situation.

Everyone in the situation could have handled themselves better, do you agree?

Getting 'physical' with the guy is not the issue.

Excessive force is the issue and the cops DO NOT have a right to do so, anymore than the abusive husband has a right to get 'physical'.

Blaming the victim for the actions of the abuser is completely absurd.

13  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Terror watch list has grown exponentially since 2009 on: July 22, 2014, 07:48:20 PM
And with no means of getting your name off it.  WTF?
14  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Romney v Obama debate - LMFAO x 1,000,000 how wrong O-twink was on: July 22, 2014, 07:46:02 PM
Careful now.  You already have two groupies. 

33 must be slacking.  I think he used to have like 6 stalkers at one point.

Gotta step up the pace, lol.
15  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: 5 NYPD cops choke unarmed man to death on: July 22, 2014, 07:43:29 PM
I am not arguing that all resistance is the same but to say that his actions did not result in the escalation of the situation is dishonest...

he is dead b/c he refused the orders and resisted being taken into custody by abusive cops who failed to control themselves. The abusive cops with lack of control would not have been in the situation to be abusive and lose control enough to kill him if he had not helped escalate the situation. THAT DOES NOT EXCUSE THE COPS ACTIONS

I think youre to emotionally involved in this bro. I have not once defended the cops actions, they should be dealt with as the force used was excessive.

But that doesnt excuse the mans actions either, he had a hand in the escalation of the situation. There is absolutely no way to deny that!!!

Of course you're defending the cops.  You're just trying to play it both ways.

This is the crux of your argument and says it all:
"The abusive cops with lack of control would not have been in the situation to be abusive and lose control enough to kill him if he had not helped escalate the situation"

They were NOT in a situation to be abusive and lose control.  You want it to be that way because you want to claim he's partially at fault.   

This is like a saying a battered woman contributed to her own beating because she did something to trigger the abusive I said, an absurd argument.

16  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: 5 NYPD cops choke unarmed man to death on: July 22, 2014, 06:45:10 PM
Skip he resisted being taken into custody, if had been peaceful and cooperative do you think they would have put him in a chokehold?

if not, then yes his actions played a role in the escalation of the situation. There is no way to dispute that...

who said anything about being obedient? there is a time and a place for everything and when youre surrounded by 3 cops its not the time to resist being taken into custody!!!!

would it make it better if he was guilty skip?

Of course it's disputable and you're merely trying to argue that all resistance is the same. 

Trying to argue that because he put up light - and we're talking VERY light resistance - means that it led to the cops using an excessive amount of force, thus he contributed to his own death, is absurd.

He's dead because the cops are abusive.

He's dead because the cops failed to control themselves.

They'll probably walk, because all too many people will take your view and think he brought it on himself because wasn't strictly obedient.
17  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: 5 NYPD cops choke unarmed man to death on: July 22, 2014, 02:53:32 AM
disagree, my argument is valid b/c without him resisting and without him refusing to go along with the police he too was responsible for the confrontation.

you cannot willfully get into the confrontation and then take no responsibility for the outcome of that confrontation.

Lol look if they were just talking and the guy got clobbered that would be one thing and I would be right there with you. This guy was given many orders and he refused to go along, he responded to negatively when they tried to take him into custody.

Look I am not defending the cops, they obviously over reacted and need to be dealt with but to say that this guy had no hand in the situation and by extension the outcome is dishonest.

Be polite, do what they ask and after that file a complaint. Dont sit there and get upset and refuse orders and then act suprised when they get physical with you.

Did you guys really expect them to just walk away after he got agitated?

He told them not to touch him and tried to turn away.  That's it!  You're claiming that means he contributed to his own death.  It's absurd.

Strict obedience to authority is not what we as a society should ever be required to display.  He had every right to ask questions of them, and in most State's you have every right to resist an unlawful arrest. have no idea if he was even guilty in this matter, they could have harassing him for his previous record.

Giving that they were willing to murder him over some untaxed smokes, it wouldn't surprise me if the arrest was unlawful to begin with.  Like I said, his big crime was fucking with the salaries of cops, prosecutors, and judges.

18  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: 5 NYPD cops choke unarmed man to death on: July 21, 2014, 07:07:40 PM
Yes malbert who said that?

The cops used excessive force does that mean this guys past and his actions of resisting and refusing to follow orders didn't play a role in this?

Let's all be intellectually honest here and admit the he played a role in his own death.

Meh...he didn't do himself any favors, but I don't think he contributed to his own death.  You're argument is really only valid if he continued to escalate his resistance to a point where killing him via a choke hold was the only option...and we don't really see that ever happening.

What we see is cops viciously beating the shit outta somebody cause they keep their arms close, or don't move an arm behind their back, or don't drop to their knees immediately, and then our lapdog society buying the officer's bullshit about being in fear of their life.

I don't think Mal was referring to any of us, but I would agree that minorities are disproportionately affected by the abuse.

19  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Israel and Gaza - discussion on: July 21, 2014, 06:55:57 PM
What would $620+ million dollars do to improve our border security? That's what the US is sending Isreal for it's missile security system, about double what was initially allocated. Done with bi-partisan support.

Yea, I'm not big on giving money to either side.  I think we have to help our own first, before we give away to others.  But, this is completely approved yet, so the amount might be reduced, and you can usually see some type of caveat where the money has to be used (or a portion of it) in the U.S.

20  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberals are phonies. 20 examples on: July 21, 2014, 06:36:30 PM
They're both dangerous - and for the same reasons. Any group that believes that it has "divine truth" on its side and has received a dictum to spread that belief is dangerous. The problem isn't the particular god, or the particular tenets of the religion in question, although they certainly help. The problem is unjustifiable mystical beliefs and the notion that those beliefs ought to be shoved down every non-believer's throat.

With that said, it's clear that at this time, Muslim extremism is a much more pressing issue. But let's not stick our head in the sand and pretend that only Muslims want to impose a theocracy.

Neither here nor there to what I was quoting.  I don't doubt for a minute that the religious right would impose a Christian theocracy if given the chance.  Doesn't change that the typical liberal mentality that I see displayed is one where Christian's are dangerous, but Muslims are not.  It's utter nonsense.

21  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Israel and Gaza - discussion on: July 21, 2014, 06:32:58 PM
Sad - they find the missiles at the school, yet may have given them back to Hamas.  Come on. 

No. Sadly, the Palestinian people want peace. Most of them do. But Hamas does not, and uses them and doesnt care about them.  Very sad.  No one wants missles coming to them, either way.  But Hamas needed this, because the Arab world was slowly stopping to give them money, and worse - Egypt doesnt want anything to do with them, as well as many other Arab nations.

What is not noted here is that Israel and Egypt are working together.  At the same time Israel responded to Hamas' rejection of the cease fire, Egypt closed all borders and illegal tunnel activity on their end too. 

Nope.  Not only was Hamas elected by Palestinians it is impossible for them to function without their help.  Of course there are those that don't want a fight, as in any war.  But trying to portray Hamas as so different from the average Palestinian - the very ones who put them in power - just reeks of politically correct non-sense.

22  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Obama Speech NWO Bilderberg EU 2014 on: July 20, 2014, 05:56:43 PM
really? You have a link?

I'm not a big fan of politifact, but it's one of the first that popped up and I don't feel like searching.  This is a dead issue.

Here is the part in context:

"And those ideas eventually inspired a band of colonialists across an ocean, and they wrote them into the founding documents that still guide America today, including the simple truth that all men -- and women -- are created equal.

But those ideals have also been tested -- here in Europe and around the world.  Those ideals have often been threatened by an older, more traditional view of power. This alternative vision argues that ordinary men and women are too small-minded to govern their own affairs, that order and progress can only come when individuals surrender their rights to an all-powerful sovereign."
23  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: How can you not help but love progressives? on: July 20, 2014, 05:36:31 PM
So now it's Obama's fault that there is a drought in California?  Roll Eyes

Water shortage in a desert? Who'd have ever thunk it? Roll Eyes

You didn't read anything.  Aren't you the same twat crying about coach not reading your multi-page non-sense.

Why yes...yes you were.

24  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Liberals are phonies. 20 examples on: July 20, 2014, 05:33:13 PM
15) Liberalism is pretending that Christians are dangerous while radical Islamists chanting "Death to America" and advocating Sharia law are harmless little lambs.

25  Getbig Main Boards / Politics and Political Issues Board / Re: Why Free-market Economics Is a Fraud on: July 20, 2014, 05:29:24 PM
No way me nor almost anyone on here is going to read all that. fucking way any normal person would, lol.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 257
Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!