- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 45,718
- Reaction score
- 22,205
135 for 8 reps is pretty bad ass. I think I hit 4 at 135 at my best.My best at 23 was 135 for 8 reps, no legs. I weighed about 160. Once Covid is done I'm getting back on it.
135 for 8 reps is pretty bad ass. I think I hit 4 at 135 at my best.My best at 23 was 135 for 8 reps, no legs. I weighed about 160. Once Covid is done I'm getting back on it.
135 for 8 reps is pretty bad ass. I think I hit 4 at 135 at my best.
At your best, how tight was your body Mr. Warrior?
Do you like the military press?
tight as in my BMI?
I always do kegel exercises when I post.This is great to develop your sweet deltoids Mr. Tonni...
No, your whole physical existence at that point in time. I must know...
things could be better...then again, things could be a lot more worse.
I'm a "glass is half full" type of guy.
right now, I'm grateful for my health, still have a headful of hair, and full time job in the era of Covid.
Framed in a historical context towards Jim Crow laws, it completely undermines the counterpoint I've seen here time and time again of "that was the past and has no bearing on the present"because the gop hates democracy and can only win elections if they cheat.
Framed in a historical context towards Jim Crow laws, it completely undermines the counterpoint I've seen here time and time again of "that was the past and has no bearing on the present"
The liberals need to put some bite behind their bark and pursue sweeping federal voter laws that states can't undermine. It's honestly one of the most laughable aspects of American "democracy".
1, Regarding the "law that I was defending", I expressed in that thread how petty it was to include pools and movies. You called me tyrannical lmao!The law that you were defending had provisions for movies and swimming. And it was cash (that is, recipients of cash couldn't use cash on things they were deemed unworthy of).
Again, the same argument applies. People are in poverty and they need more money. If they get it from one source, you want the gov't to watch over their purchases to make sure they're not gettin' too big for their britches. If they get it from another source, you don't care how they spend it. It's sick, IMO. And this is really why I have so much contempt for True Progressives (@Trotsky). A bill passes that literally cuts child poverty in half, which should be celebrated as a truly great advance for America, and these POSes are whining that an unreasonable MW increase wasn't part of it and complaining that families that have been lifted out of poverty might spend their extra money on casinos and tattoos.
Who is opposed to gov't transfers to reduce poverty?The specific purpose is to reduce poverty, and the whole reason it's a cash benefit is the assumption that people know better how to manage their limited resources than the gov't. I don't buy the argument that market income distribution is just "return on one's contribution of labor to the market," I guess, and I don't see it as plausibly progressive for what that's worth (kind of a market-worshipping thing that I think clouds people's vision). Market income is part of our system's income-distribution system just as much as transfer income. I think it's really hatred for the poor that is driving this stuff.
It's relevant throughout politics, as for people with a genuine interest in reducing poverty, True Progressives are a significant obstacle--almost as much as the right. "I'm so progressive that I actually oppose gov't transfers to reduce child poverty because those stupid poors might spend it on gambling and tattoos (poors love their tattoos, you know)."
But both parties are the same and cutting child poverty in half is bad because the stupid poors will just spend their money on tattoos and gambling according to leftists.
Framed in a historical context towards Jim Crow laws, it completely undermines the counterpoint I've seen here time and time again of "that was the past and has no bearing on the present"
The liberals need to put some bite behind their bark and pursue sweeping federal voter laws that states can't undermine. It's honestly one of the most laughable aspects of American "democracy".
1, Regarding the "law that I was defending", I expressed in that thread how petty it was to include pools and movies. You called me tyrannical lmao!
2. I don't think its reasonable to expect them to watch over it, its a hypothetical question (however, if it becomes permanent I could see mechanisms put in place, like an HSA-type card).
3. It has nothing to do with making sure people aren't getting too big for their britches. How disgustingly dishonest of you. Its about protecting that money for its intended purpose, to help children. How do tattoos and casino gambling help children?
4. I must have missed the data that shows that child poverty has already been cut in half with the passing of this bill. Thats amazing. Source?
5. Maybe they should pass a "Tattoo and Casino Allowance Protection Bill?
Framed in a historical context towards Jim Crow laws, it completely undermines the counterpoint I've seen here time and time again of "that was the past and has no bearing on the present"
The liberals need to put some bite behind their bark and pursue sweeping federal voter laws that states can't undermine. It's honestly one of the most laughable aspects of American "democracy".
Who thinks cutting child poverty in half is bad? If we all get tattoos will that cut it by 100%?