Your video, Boxer Demonstrates Hand-Eye Coordination, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm having fun envisioning other movies taking a cue from this one and having the characters' wardrobes state their role. Jurassic Park geneticists in lab coats with "Scientist" on them, Rocky wearing shorts that say "Boxer" across his ass, James Bond in his "Spy" suit...

Actually he's not right, she's not yet the nominee because the super delegates haven't yet cast their votes. They do that at the convention in July. All we have is a 'snapshot' of which way each super-delegate was leaning way back when they were asked which was, in many cases, before Bernie was even on the radar.

By 'claiming' the win, she's doing the same thing that boxers do at the end of a fight that is going to decision... they put their arms up and pretend they know they won, it looks better when you actually do win to have been confident before it was confirmed, and it may even make a judge second guess himself.

but it's not over if Bernie holds on until the convention.

*promote an amazing human being. Being the world's greatest boxer isn't half as impressive as his character was. A truly great man.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Muhammad-Ali-Was-A-More-Impressive-Man-Than-A-Boxer-Vox

Goes into more detail what an amazing moral man he was.

Muhammad Ali Was A More Impressive Man Than A Boxer -Vox has been added as a related post - related requested by bareboards2.

Um, I don't think that was Bob's or Milkman's point. And the point is all that matters because the fact that America is fucked up is irrelevant. Just as saying country A is okay so all government will not fall into the trap.

Fact is EVERY government since the start of mankind has fallen into this trap. Some take longer than others, and there are insulating features (such as nations that are sheltered by natural terrian, those with rich resources, those with low populations, and those that have never had a TRULY meaningful impact on the world but just kinda get by.)

America's problems are myriad but I think it's because they won too much in the last century and are about to fall, as any great boxer has.

Edit added later:

And no, most other governments are not. Russia, China, North Korea, many South American nations, Mexico, the Middle East, all those examples are not minor. Now you could say "many" governments.

It's no mirage its Columbia! Father Comstock has arrived, all be it late, to punish them for the Boxer Rebellion.

Long live Father Comstock!

:-P

Like Barbara Boxer is a good choice. puke

I used to box for exercise. You won't connect every shot if you're throwing punches wildly, and he did not only that but throwing powerful hooks. Looking the movement of his body and his footwork, the guy was probably a boxer of some skill early in his life.
My boxing instructor was 80 years old when I started with him, and even at the age where he would awkwardly shuffle around the outside of the ring, once he was in, I literally could not see his hands, they moved so fucking fast.
I'm thinking once it gets drilled into you, it never really leaves.

@artician I'm not a boxer, but to me it looked like the old guy was just flailing wildly.

"You're a talker. Listening to talkers makes me thirsty. And hungry." -- Sandor Clegane

First of all, don't tell me what we're discussing: "What we are discussing is the value of mike tyson's endorsement ... ," especially if we're not discussing the same thing.

I criticized the broadcaster -- others criticized Mike Tyson.

In fact, my primary argument was against the broadcaster, and my secondary argument is on the validity of Tyson's rape conviction (I used a different thread and video for that one). Notice the difference?

I criticized the broadcaster's sloppy attempt to predict the future (which is unethical because it's impossible, to say the least) and his lack of sources thereof. What was ridiculous on my part, was my original assumption that future sources could possibly exist!

And I didn't respond to all of your quips because they're not all worthy of response. In your introduction you stated, "I'm utterly unconvinced by your assertion that the public did not think his rape conviction devalued his endorsement. <--[I'm criticizing the broadcaster, you're criticizing your assumption of what I think of Tyson.] Why do you think that? <--[Begs the question.] Because you did? <--[False accusation.] As soon as i understood the story (there's no description) my immediate reaction was, "well if an ear biting rapist ex-boxer endorses you...."
How am I supposed to respond to this? I was originally offended by the broadcaster's lack of professionalism regarding his sources, but this thread forced me acknowledge his lack of logic and ability to predict the future. How cool is that?

"Think I'll take two chickens."

I'm utterly unconvinced by your assertion that the public did not think his rape conviction devalued his endorsement. Why do you think that? Because you did? As soon as i understood the story (there's no description) my immediate reaction was, "well if an ear biting rapist ex-boxer endorses you...."

I'm not saying that the broadcaster definitely had heard people saying that, but i think it's naive to think that his rape conviction went unnoticed by everyone who heard about his endorsement - i noticed. I take the way people act very seriously and mike tyson has shown himself to be a dangerous and troubled individual so my ONLY reaction to the endorsement news is "why should i care what that person thinks, given his record?"

Furthermore what responsibility are you referring to that requires him to name the persons who suggested the question to him? I thought media people have the right to protect their sources? This isn't an investigation and we're not his jury, so why would he need to name his source?

I think you're dead wrong on this one, for example if he had said "Some people are saying this is mike tyson's big come back! What do you have to say to them?" I don't think you'd be demanding that he name his individual sources.

Now if mike tyson were on tv to give his opinion on who was going to win the next football/baseball season then i'd say his past wasn't relevant. But if he's going to offer his endorsement to what seems to be a political interest, then his character and therefore his past is the only relevant issue. Mike tyson had a good opportunity here to talk about how his life has turned around, and what he believes in now. He's a very eloquent man when he wants to be, and he could have knocked that question out of the park, made a viral hit, made the endorsement 10x stronger. But you know what he did instead? He acted like a thug and spat abuse at the guy, swearing and being childish and making his endorsement 10x weaker.

Am i going crazy here? Surely publicly presenting your approval to something requires us to place a value on your approval, and allows your character to be questioned? And i can only see good reason to protect the anonymity of the person who wanted the question asked (even if it was the interviewer!) judging by tyson's childish, aggressive reaction! I mean i liked mike on charlie sheen's roast too, but this isn't a comedy show and that question was fair. Mike could have knocked this one out of the park if he had thought about it.

@A10anis, I think you misread @Jerykk s post. He's clearly being sarcastic.

And yeah, if a woman (or anyone) is assaulting you, of course you are within your rights to defend yourself.

But it must be a proportional response. You can't (as is the case here) seriously assault someone for a minor assault. Some jurisdictions also take the relative capabilities of the attacker into consideration as well (i.e. if you are a trained boxer or martial artist or if there is a huge strength disparity).

This idiot was completely out of line in his response.

Totally true. 'Pure Breeds' tend to live shorter lives and less healthy ones.

But it doesn't stop the Boxer from being the greatest dog 'breed' to ever exist.