Bigbrog

Just now, Ohio Elite said:

They seem to come and go. Happened a few weeks ago and now happening today.

Super weird...never had them...knock on wood I don't get them by the sounds of it

42 minutes ago, fishbane said:

He seems to be embracing it, which given his position may be his best play.

 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C-K--U3JSr6/?igsh=MWlheGdleGtuNzRlOQ==

Tool...bag!!

Huh...I don't get ads on my site

17 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

People in your lives that identify as female, how do they feel about you all making these comments and the innuendo involved? Just curious if you actually hold these opinions or that you just feel safer stating them anonymously. 

AHHH...the boards token victim...the women in my life feel the same way and laughed at the meme.  

Wow...CNN even admitted Harris does terrible during live interviews and that is why she hasn't done any since being announced as Biden's replacement.   The debates should be interesting coming up here...or sad...for many reasons

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

If you were ever honest about the true nature of your positions, our conversations would never become so contentious. Have you noticed that? 

You make a claim or a comment about something. I ask you to support it. You say something along the lines of, 'did you see this one case? It must prove my point somehow.' I say, 'it doesn't, at least not for anyone that isn't already predetermined to believe it for some underlying reason that they just don't want to admit.' This should be the first red flag. Why are you trying to appeal to anyone that doesn't already agree? What's the point? Who are you dunking on, they all agree with you? Then someone doesn't. Wheels begin to come off the wagon. Because if there is one thing I know about uninformed people. They do not like being called out as such. 

You confuse one example of an occurrence with your mistaken opinion of the whole group. You mistake correlation with causation and like anyone caught in an emotional loop, you double down and insist that you are correct. Still without providing any compelling evidence to back up that claim either. Then trapped in a corner you try to weasel out with every dishonest trick in the book; arguing semantics, focusing on a point that is not related to the topic, calling names, poisoning the well, or just claiming that you don't have time or interest to continue a discussion that you have made circular by not acknowledging any point contrary to your own. Because we all know that admitting your wrong will force you change your mind. Changing you mind is hard. Makes you question everything you know from that source and what if all that stuff is wrong. The mountain of potential embarrassing things is pretty high. So rather than take that first step and having to go through this process each and every time you change you mind. You just... don't. Because its easier. So the cycle continues. You probably didn't read down to the this part and why would you? From everything I know about you, as soon as you see something you don't agree with or could challenge your opinion you stop, call it crazy so you don't have to take it seriously, and move on. Making sure to offer your opinion so that others can see it and form their opinions on it before reading too. 

Good luck 

You are a true whakadoodle!  What are you even talking about??  I think you just type words to type words and just project what you truly feel about yourself onto others.

To prove how crazy you are...name or provide one instance where I did not provide examples/facts/data for my stance on something...just one!

Anyone know what "Jerking their knees" means??

1 hour ago, Caveira said:

It’s her “success” that got her 150 million.   Yep.  Also what experience does she have in this field?

Good luck with your back and fourth...my guess is you will be called some sort of "ism" very shortly

Just now, Wrestleknownothing said:

Except 401k, IRAs, 501c3, etc. are categorically different from what I poorly described.

All of those are structured to encourage investment/capital formation by deferring taxes, not avoiding. And they are specifically identified in law (hence names like 401k which refers to section 401, paragraph k of the Revenue Act of 1978).

The trades I am refering to are to allow asset owners to synthetically sell appreciated assets without paying taxes on gains. These trades are not available to any but the ultra-wealthy because they need to be large enough for Wall Street to care.

A classic, simple trade is called "buy, borrow, die". Buy an asset, if it appreciates significantly rather than sell borrow against it in a way that is tied to the price of the asset, then include the asset in your estate so that when you die the basis is marked to market and your heirs pay little to no taxes on the gains, but also don't get the gains because you borrowed against those.

There are many, more clever trades that do not require death.

Can I give you my money to invest Wrestlingknownothing??

4 minutes ago, Danny Deck said:

The whole thing is largely symbolic, as I understand the original tax on unrealized gains, it applied to those with 100 million+ in assets. A lot of this is both sides jockeying to have populist rage on their side. You don't have to have effective policy to do that. Saying the very wealthy will have to pay taxes when they use debt to live their lavish lifestyles feels good even if probably wouldn't really do much for the bottom line.

A VAT seems like what we need in lieu of what we have, but we'll never get it. The rich would have a harder time avoiding it so they'll say we have to protect the poor from a regressive tax.

I am stoopid...what is "VAT" and what does it mean?

2 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

“I don’t care about actually backing anything I say, what I really care about is just arguing to argue because he pushed some feels, without even saying anything about the people I get so touchy feely about”

This is where the conversation starts to bore me, I tried to help you and guide you to simply stick with what I actually say. But hey, one can only do so much. 
 

Bye Felicia 

LOL...again...what is with some of you people...why is it if you disagree with someone it means they are "mad", "upset", "full meltdown", "pushed some feels", etc.??  Is that the go to in debate??  Or maybe it is projection??

And get over yourself there Rasta...I don't need your help with anything...well, maybe some smoking/grilling advice, but definitely not anything political related.  I called out for what you said...and I quoted that you said it, then you argued by quoting it again (which is weird)...fine...you didn't mean people were in "full meltdown" because of Harris/Walz or Trump...my bad for assuming.    Oh...and you haven't bashed Trump A LOT in the past on here...my bad.    

By the way, how did you know my real name was Felicia??

1 hour ago, BobDole said:

I follow, friends, wrestling related stuff, and baseball stuff. I see way more porn bots than ever before. None of my stuff on the Xer is political.

Here is a great example of a post from Bucknell in support of an athlete.

There were definite bots while under the other leadership, but these ones aren't even concealing it. 

Get over yourself Bobby...she isn't looking to hook up with a dead president...nor is she looking to extort money out of one...sheesh!!

LOL  

Ahhh...our victim chasing whackadoodle is back

23 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

I don’t see any examples in there, I just see you typing stuff. This site has a feature where you can look up my post history. In there I think you’ll find that the threads I start out about music, or food, or unity.  If you’d like to provide examples of me being in full meltdown mode, maybe starting with….show me where I mentioned Trump in any way in the post you responded to, or….you can show me anywhere I said anything about people in meltdown mode because they are talking about Harris/Waltz….then I am more than happy to take a look and see where I mistaken.
 

Secondly, I didn’t claim you were anything. I made yet another observation that you constantly claim you can’t stand him, but yet you are so quick to come to his defense. Even in, as in this case, he was not mentioned, at all.  

Do yourself a favor if you’d like to carry on a conversation with me…..stick to what I actually say. 

 

LOL...one...I don't care that much about it to go search and find all the examples of you talking negatively about Trump and being accused of TDS on multiple occasions...if you feel that that hasn't happened on here then that is on you, not me.  

And you are now claiming you didn't say anything about people being in "full meltdown mode" on this very thread??  And I quote...from a mere 5 hours ago:

"Haven't watch two seconds of either convention, but all you need to do to tell how they are going is read this board, or twitter.   Some folks are in full meltdown mode."

So please tell us who were you referring to than if you weren't referring to people on this thread??

20 minutes ago, Caveira said:

There is a vid comparing waltz’s on stage antics to Richard Simmons.   The vid is a side by side of them both dancing.  I found that funny 

Nope...you must be mad or upset

47 minutes ago, braves121 said:

Those with  TDS are also talking about why does no one care walz said this if trump said it it would be a different story. That’s literally the OP point of this post.  I’m claiming people are mad or upset about this because they are posting about a guy talking about white people tacos as if it’s a career ending scandal and a doubled standard on a wrestling forum lmao

You are making no sense. 

And when people bring up something they think is worth discussing on the forum about political candidates leading up to the presidential election that means they are "mad" and "upset"??  LMAO is right

2 minutes ago, braves121 said:

I mention tds because i dunno bc posters on this board are saying if TRUMP said this people would be upset 

So you agree...those with TDS would talk about it nonstop if Trump said it...we are making progress. 

By the way...why are you obsessed with claiming people are "mad" or "upset"??  So weird.

17 hours ago, braves121 said:

I truly don’t think it would be the same lol looks like TDS affects everyone you’re mad at the fact that maybe if trump said this people would be mad? So people are mad because people are not mad at Walz? Weird

Reading comprehension is hard...who said anyone was "mad"...calling out people's hypocrisy isn't an indication that people are "mad".  And what does TDS have to do with anything??  So weird that you brought that up.

By the way, is claiming someone is "mad" the new form of debate when you don't know what you are talking about??  Can't people address the issue instead of infusing stupid claims about the person they are talking with and using deflections??

I got a kick out of a meme I saw yesterday that said, at the DNC, Harris/Walz and the D's are claiming they are going to fix everything come November when Harris/Walz are voted in, yet the D's have had the presidency 12 of the last 16 years...lol

47 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Provide some examples of my full meltdown please.   Please provide examples of my starting thread after thread, or spending days on end arguing over and over "yeah but's" , or posting furiously on twitter,  (same screen name) or any of those other 'meltdown' characteristics you have experienced from me.   

You sure jump at every possible opportunity to defend the guy for "not being able to stand the guy".   I mean.......I didn't mention anything about Trump at all here, nada nothing zilch,  I said nothing about who particularly is in meltdown mode, just that some folks are,  but yet.... you're right there ready to defend.    Hmmmmmm.

LOL...okay...as I thought...claim you don't comment negatively non-stop about Trump and turn around accuse others of "full meltdown mode" because they talk about Harris/Walz...and then deflect by claiming I am a secrete Trump supporter...nice try.

5 hours ago, billyhoyle said:

The idea that MMA is accurate as to "who the best fighter really is" is nonsense. There are tons of arbitrary rules in MMA, just like there are in boxing, kickboxing, and slapfighting. Not to mention that the way UFC is set up in pay and how they advance contenders incentivizes their "fighters" to put on a show ahead of anything else. Fight with a boring, yet effective style? Good luck advancing in the sport.  Fight like an entertaining idiot and you will get an easy path to a title shot. Obviously, I'm not criticizing that approach from a business standpoint, but the fact that UFC was purchased by WWE is not a coincidence. You are watching a show, not a combat sport that is any more legitimate than any of the others.

 

As to what the pinnacle of combat sports is...The answer is obviously boxing in the 70s. But even MMA 15-20 years ago was 10X the product that UFC is today. 

 

Terrible take

35 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Haven't watch two seconds of either convention, but all you need to do to tell how they are going is read this board, or twitter.   Some folks are in full meltdown mode.

Ok Rasta I have to call you out...so if you think people are on "full meltdown mode" (whatever that means)...then you admit you go "full meltdown mode" when it comes to Trump

1 hour ago, braves121 said:

If this is the stuff republicans obsess on i say dems are gonna blow this election out of the water

I personally couldn't care less about this and what he said, but you have to be completely delusional to think if Trump/Vance said anything remotely close to this the MSM and the D's wouldn't be screaming racist from every roof top they could find.  For crying out loud they lost their minds when Trump called Covid the "Wuhan Virus"...which isn't even remotely racist.  Virus used to be named after their origin...not anymore because of guess who...???

25 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

The comment section of every viral post is filled with porn bots. 

If this is the case...maybe I need to get on X!!

{I kid...I kid}

35 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Old and sick people don't matter is a bold stance for the "pro-life" party to take.

Who said "old and sick people don't matter"??  I sure didn't.  And what does that have to do with "pro-life party"??  Surely you aren't assuming what my stance is are you?