FreshPrinceofDubtown

Hagler maybe, but Hagler was a career middleweight so that fight never would have happened. Duran might have swarmed him and got some licks on him like Maidana in their first fight, but that fight could go either way. Same with Leonard: their styles are so similar that fight would almost certainly be close on points and go either way.

I 100% agree that Mayweather is a tremendous a-hole, but saying he's not a legendary boxer just doesn't agree with his record and who he fought. Yes, people will bring up the Pac fight happening too late (and I agree, it did), but people tend to focus on that one fight and forget that:

- Mayweather made Juan Manuel Marquez (who knocked Pac out in their fourth fight and is the other great lightweight/welter of the era) look like an amateur when they fought;
- Mayweather pretty much ended Ricky Hatton's career (he was undefeated when they met, Mayweather knocked him out in the 10th round); and
- Mayweather holds victories over both the current lineal middleweight champion and the previous middleweight champion.

Besides Pac (and the fact that fight happened late is not 100% on Mayweather either), Mayweather has taken on all comers and beaten them all (most soundly).

The same folks that shite on Mayweather are the same people that don't like Tiger Woods: they dislike the personality and they use that as an excuse to argue that he's not one of the best ever despite a record that clearly indicates otherwise.

quote:

---

As long as I live in a country I feel safe and my kids can have a great education and good healthcare and everything is affordable I am ok with that. It could always be worse.

---

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

We're doomed, and I hope our grandchildren have the mental fortitude to curse people like you who sold their futures so you could watch Dancing with the Stars and buy cheap shite at CostCo.

quote:

---

I don't disagree that there is work to be done in funding, potentially shifting the age at which a person is able to draw. SS was designed to keep people from dying in the streets at a very old age.

---

Oh, so it's okay for people age 67, 68, and 69 to "starve in the street," but not 70 year olds? This suggests the problem is not in how to pay for everyone, but how to decide who gets to eat and who doesn't. That runs pretty contrary to your belief that SS "keeps poor people off the streets," doesn't it?

quote:

---

But using rhetoric like "Ponzi scheme" is just a way to be provocative about a program you don't like.

---

It's an "investment fund" with no actual investing going on, wherein older investors are paid a return from money from newer investors. That is the very same definition of a Ponzi. No provocation: the mechanics are exactly identical. You can call a turd a rose but it still smells like shite.

I will grant, however, that Ponzi schemes are a bit less morally repugnant given that I'm not coerced at gunpoint to invest in one.

quote:

---

SS is a Ponzi scheme? Lol nice sound bite but a ridiculous assertion.

---

Ponzi Scheme (defined from Investopedia): A fraudulent investing scam promising high rates of return with little risk to investors. The Ponzi scheme generates returns for older investors by acquiring new investors. This scam actually yields the promised returns to earlier investors, as long as there are more new investors. These schemes usually collapse on themselves when the new investments stop.

A challenge for you: go take a look at how current social security payments are financed (hint: change 'beneficiaries' to 'investors' in your mind as you read along) and please explain to me the difference.

quote:

---

SS has literally kept starving senior citizens off the streets for decades. What do you propose we do?

---

Maybe allow people to make the best retirement decisions for themselves using the money they earned through their hard work? In fact, three Texas counties did just that with a decidedly better outcome.

quote:

---

It all depends on whether or not we want old people starving on the street because that's what will happen.

---

Or because that's what happens when people have the expectation that the government is going to provide for them in perpetuity. It's called a "moral hazard." I'll let you look that one up yourself.

Take a look at what happens in places without a social safety net, like China: where people average a 50% savings rate. They know the government isn't going to help them and they plan accordingly.

In other words, people on average make the best decisions for themselves when we allow them to do so. Without government theft, without a broken and convoluted bureaucracy.

But, you won't hear that from the government mouthpieces, because this whole system is all about dependency and not charity.

quote:

---

There have been many people look at the numbers and none of them agree on when the money runs out so how exactly are you coming to this random conclusion and timeline as to when this unsustainable entity drys up?

---

You're not a "numbers person," are you?

Anyone can see with figures published by the government and freely available to the public that the ratio of those currently paying in per person drawing on Social Security has been decreasing steadily over time. Once that figure goes below one, the system collapses.

It's a Ponzi scheme. If I were to put a description of the mechanics of Madoff's fraud and that of the Social Security system, and removed the names, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. The whole thing is a wealth redistribution system designed to buy votes. That's not an opinion: that's what the numbers say. If you think there's going to be anything left for you when you reach retirement age you're sadly deluded.

quote:

---

The Dream Team class was one of the best closing efforts since the FSU NSDs in the 90s

---

You mean the one time that Richt actually had to try hard to save his seven-figure paycheck?

Is i t just me, or does CPJ look like he's always wearing makeup? That, and a serious case of "low T."

quote:

---

What is the disconnect in the ATL?

---

Racial politics combined with urban sprawl wherein the people that work in the city do not live in the city.

quote:

---

If Gurley were to sit the rest of the season, would he be eligible for a Med Redshirt?

---

I'm sure he'll appreciate the extra year of eligibility when he declares for the draft at the end of next season.

Given that he spent 10 years eating dirt for the Aints, I don't blame him for wanting his kids to be in a better position to succeed in their careers.

In fact, I don't understand why most elite players don't go that route. If you're going in the top five, you're going to go to a struggling team and have loads of expectations placed upon you at 22 years old and having zero familiarity with the level of athleticism present from top-to-bottom in the pros.

Better to be a mid/late first rounder, go to a solid team, and then pick up the payday down the road once your rookie contract expires. Hell, it ain't like late round money is bad money anyway.