i think that the U.S. government should take a history class... Russia tried to do the same thing that we are doing now during the cold war. What we call terrorists today were called Freedom-Fighters then.

the problem with fighting against terrorists is they use gurilla fighting tactics which are very effective against conventional fighting techniques. it is IMPOSSIBLE to win a war that is fought but using conventional methods against gurilla warfare unless one side runs out of money/materials.

seriously, the other day me and on of my friends were play "wrestling" before school. we sometimes do that just for the fun of it and no harm ever comes of it , it is just us messing around. but anyways the other day a special needs assistant came in and saw us, and he took us both to the office where we were both given a saturday detention, ( which is where you have to go to school on a saturday for 5 hours). he said it was given for disruptice behavior and fighting. i asked him why the disruptive behavior (because it was before school started so it wasnt disrupting anything) and he proceeded to tell me that fighting is disruptive behavior in itself. he further said that it wasnt realy fighting because no punches were thrown but that we still deserve a saturday detention.

Does this seem right?

i think that it should be leagalized not just in california but in the whole United States. For one reason it would rid the streets of many drug related crimes, and also it would give the government more money because they could tax the crap out of it like they do with ciggarettes.

why are minorities so easily offended? i understand that many minorities have suffered throughout history, but i think that many people take advantage of their being a minority.

i think that the cartoon isnt racist and that because of freedom of speech the person that made the cartoon had every right to publish it but just because he had the right though doesnt mean that he should have done it.

it depends on your size/weight/height/and your tolerance level. if you hardly ever have caffine then it will probably have a greater effect on you

Turn off the lights... and you know what happens next...

They're called Kudos Bars. A little history: even as a kid, chocolate after the second bar just doesn't taste as good. But these things are as addictive as heck, and being sick is the only way to stop eating them. Plus the company claims that these contain calcium, so take that how you will if you believe these could be remotely nutritious.

Unfortunately I can't find them anywhere in stores anymore.

Do you have any snacks that you like? Ones that aren't Cheetos or Nachos or candy or any of those types of food.

thattotally

oh i remember those, i used to love those. its a shame that you can't find them anymore.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]

Of course you can be partially free and partially enslaved, just look at any monarchy that has ever existed, any dictatorship. Do you know who is considered the greatest French leader? King Louis XIV, and his nickname was the Sun-God. Under his rule, France became the most powerful civilization on the planet. He was really the left-hand of God, the Pope being the right, yet the French people could still do as they wished, just as we can. However, they didn't have much civic freedom. This is also true for the British Empire, and it's true for the Roman Empire.

Your argument deals with absolutes, whereas mine deals with reality, in that things aren't black and white.

TheAbbeFaria

So in absolute monarhies and empires such as Imperial France, Rome, and England you could speak your mind about, I don't know, the royal or imperal family? Because I thought if that were to happen you'd face hanging, beheading, firing squad, indentured servitude, or any number of executions or imprisonments. Just as it did in France (I would look up your beloved Louis XIV and how he revoked the Edict of Nantes, fora start, because he did revoke several religious rights held by Protestants before he ruled), England (for one, look up Queen Elizabeth I's policy towards Ireland), Rome (need I remind you of the Emperors Nero and Caligula?), and for good measure Japan (Tokugawa Ieyasu, for one, who ordered the executions of his own wife and son), and Belgium (look up the accounts of the horrors of their Congo colony).

Guess what? Dictatorships rarely, if ever, allow their subjects to speak out against them. They control with an iron fist their subjects and if that doesn't work, they kill their subjects with an iron sword. "Submit or die" is the catchphrase of all dictatorships, from the empires and kingdoms of antiquity, through the absolute monarchies of Europe and Asia, to the fascist and communist states of the modern era. Those who spoke out against their rulers, whether Nero, Elizabeth, Louis, or Hitler either went to some form of prison or were killed on the spot. That doesn't sound like freedom to me...

Did you not even read my post? If you're not going to read what I write, then this is all just pointless. I said they didn't have civic freedom in those monarchies, which means they couldn't speak out against the government, yet they still had personal freedom to do as they wished about their daily lives. So in every sense, people were partially free and partially enslaved in these monarchies.

Secondly, I'm not enamored with King Louis XIV at all, but it's the truth that he is considered to be the greatest ruler France has ever had, after-all it was the people who named him the Sun-God. You don't get that kind of title by being a mass murderer like Hitler Sure, he and many other Kings and Queens had blood on their hands but so have all of our Presidents who've kept slaves, wiped out entire nations of Native Americans, planted flags on stolen land, ect, all in the name of freedom and liberty.

how can you say he was the greatest ruler of France? He himself doubted his ruling abilities. "Do not follow the bad example which I have set you; I have often undertaken war too lightly and have sustained it for vanity. Do not imitate me, but be a peaceful prince, and may you apply yourself principally to the alleviation of the burdens of your subjects". he said this to Louis XV before he was to take the throne.

biggie smalls

the game

bone thugs

If your a beginner i suggest something like this

Day 1: Chest/ Tri

Bench press 5x

DB incline bench 3x

DB flyes 3x

Dips 2x

Tricep extension 3x

ab work

Day 2: Back/ Bicep

Deadlift 5x

DB row 3x

Lat pull down 3x

Curls 3x

Pullups 3x

ab work

Day 3: Legs

Squats 5x

Leg press 3x

Calf Raises 3x

ab work

Make sure you eat 4 to 5 meals a day and get lots of protein.

Always make sure you stay with the big 3 (bench, squats, deadlift). They are the most important exercises.

After you beginner gains, i suggest you add in more workouts and change it to 4 days a week.

btw: Change up your routine every 6-8 weeks. If you feel that your overtraining take a week off.

Hope i helped.

hedden93

i have found that deadlift doesnt do that much because he seems to want to get that "ripped" look. if he wants to get bigger arms then triceps are the best because they take up over half of the arm. if you want to be able to flex and have big muscles then biceps are the way to go.

i have also found that doing forearm work can make your forearms much firmer and stronger. i cant remember what the workout is called but if you take just the benchpress bar and hold it with your hands close together and rest your forearms on the bench then lift and basically do wrist curls, works well.

***dont try to do ANYTHING that you are not 100% sure how to do*** you can really do damage, i would suggest either asking a friend or someone that works in the wight department of the gym. you can even ask someone else that you see working out at the gym.