Whch Poster Is The Most/Best...

[devilmunchkin]

i know...
it was just my way if saying i'm still around..
although some people take it the wrong way. i guess i need to putin context clues for our younger and less mature readers.

[faded glory]

thats a hardcore threadjack on trolls part!


Well gang, im off to go play with my poo

[devilmunchkin]

i'm taking tomorrow off to just chill...however..i did write this to many many many congressional officials...

Dear Sir,
Most likely you are more than aware and more than a little familar with the recent events relating to the decision of the ninth circuit. While this decision may not directly affect Texas, I do strongly believe that it should, as it sheds light on a malignant problem in our country.
As you know, our country has always been the melting pot of the world. The world has different view points on all areas of religion and philosophy, yet in the past few decades, many politicians have taken it upon themselves to abuse their powers gained through election and corrupt the meaning and the Constitution. Perhaps it's obviously that I'm very much for the removal of "under god" from the pledge as well as "in god we trust" from money. The restrictive phrases enstilled by McCarthy (now ridiculed from history books to philosophical circles) and others declare that unless someone believes in the Christian god, that they cannot possibly have true patriotic convictions. Such a thing is far from the truth, and such restrictions are in no way what the founders of this country intended.
Our founding fathers were free masons (deists) and atheists who in no way wished to chain America to fundamentalist views. The very things that many Christians attempt to shove down the American gullet today are the very things that our Revolution was fought for.
This nation was never intended to be or become a Judeo-Christian nation, not matter what President Bush might espouse. That our country is run by mostly white Christian males who instill a minority will (which is questionable in truth at best) is the most outrageous and smudged form of democracy I've ever seen. Even
if our leaders (perhaps like yourself) hold Christian tenets, it is your duty to keep them out of your work and in your home. It is your duty to represent not only your people (and not just the ones who donate the most money to your campaign or hold your same beliefs) but your Constitution, and do so in a manner that is consistent with democracy.
Without your devotion to such a pure cause, we cannot be one nation with liberty and justice For All.

[David Floyd]

Well, thats not entirely true. I am not saying that someone stays and kicks someone from three feet. One must move horizontally and laterally. TKD teaches when you reverse, you look over your shoulder prior to launching attack, so you may need to slide backward or forward, move diagonally or laterally to avoid or even create an attack.

Yes, that is true, but what I'm saying is that if someone comes straight after you, they will almost certainly get through your kicking range very quickly - if someone wants to take you down, for instance, and is willing to absorb a kick or two, then they will be able to take you down.

Thats where hands come in, as I said, SECONDARY. I didnt mean to imply that you NEVER use hands, quite the opposite is true. Hands,arms and forearms are an awesomme arsenal,once honed and properly seasoned in training.

Yes, they are powerful, but I believe you should train in them firstly and primarily, because most fights will end up at close range. Watch a UFC

As for a snap kick, I agree, I am not sure whom you fought, but in TKD, a snap kick is not high on the "Takedown" kicks. Sidekick, step behind sidekick, hook kick,turning kick,reverse hook kick, Axe Kick,jump reverse hook kick are some of the more "potent" available. I would rarely use the snap kick or even a popular TKD "Twist-kick", other than point fighting. Twist-kicks are great innpoint tourneys, but I would not use ina real fight, at least not too often

When I said snap kick, I meant really any kind of kick where you snap the leg at the knee. No kick like that has the power of a Thai kick, although they are probably a little faster.
The problem with sidekicks is that, fighting a Thai Boxer, they will be able to kick under your kicking leg and sweep your planted leg. Side kicks are also fairly easy to side step. As to high kicks of any kind, the danger there is having your leg caught, which grapplers train heavily for.

As for only getting in one kick, TOPS, hmm, you must have seen some lame-A$$ TKD wanna-B's

I think he was a third degree black belt.

This is what I meant by SELF-DEFENSE. Countering is Self-Defense, as in REACTING to an attack, not just being defensive in status or mode, but rather not Initiating contact.

That's true, but a lot of fighting styles teach you to throw the first strike in an obviously dangerous situation. Kenpo Karate is a lot like this (although I dislike that martial art), as is Thai Boxing and Vale Tudo to an extent.

Well, Christianity is my "thing", but a person cannot be 100% physical, they need mental and thats where being properly trained within the whole realmn comes in.

True, but mental preparation comes in, for me, in heavy, hard contact, realistic training, knowing I can take a hit, etc.

Well, Kata's and Hyoung's do merely teach the "Basics" of a punch,kick,block or strike. Thats all they do.

They may teach the basics of strikes in TKD, Karate, or whatnot, but because they have no practical fighting use, they are avoided in fighting styles such as Brazilian Jiujitsu, boxing, Thai Boxing, Vale Tudo, and other realistic styles.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by devilmunchkin
i'm taking tomorrow off to just chill...however..i did write this to many many many congressional officials...

Dear Sir,
Most likely you are more than aware and more than a little familar with the recent events relating to the decision of the ninth circuit. While this decision may not directly affect Texas, I do strongly believe that it should, as it sheds light on a malignant problem in our country.
As you know, our country has always been the melting pot of the world. The world has different view points on all areas of religion and philosophy, yet in the past few decades, many politicians have taken it upon themselves to abuse their powers gained through election and corrupt the meaning and the Constitution. Perhaps it's obviously that I'm very much for the removal of "under god" from the pledge as well as "in god we trust" from money. The restrictive phrases enstilled by McCarthy (now ridiculed from history books to philosophical circles) and others declare that unless someone believes in the Christian god, that they cannot possibly have true patriotic convictions. Such a thing is far from the truth, and such restrictions are in no way what the founders of this country intended.
Our founding fathers were free masons (deists) and atheists who in no way wished to chain America to fundamentalist views. The very things that many Christians attempt to shove down the American gullet today are the very things that our Revolution was fought for.
This nation was never intended to be or become a Judeo-Christian nation, not matter what President Bush might espouse. That our country is run by mostly white Christian males who instill a minority will (which is questionable in truth at best) is the most outrageous and smudged form of democracy I've ever seen. Even
if our leaders (perhaps like yourself) hold Christian tenets, it is your duty to keep them out of your work and in your home. It is your duty to represent not only your people (and not just the ones who donate the most money to your campaign or hold your same beliefs) but your Constitution, and do so in a manner that is consistent with democracy.
Without your devotion to such a pure cause, we cannot be one nation with liberty and justice For All.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by devilmunchkin
Our founding fathers were free masons (deists) and atheists who in no way wished to chain America to fundamentalist views.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Ben Franklin, Sam Adams, and Thomas Payne were definitely deists. Thomas Jefferson was too during his active political years, but became religious again later in life. I go to church on land he donated for the building of a church. Most of the others held with conventional Christian faith. As I said above Patrick Henry actually tried to form a state church in Virginia. George Washington was on the committee that formed the Protestant Episcopal church. John Adams, John Hancock, and most of the members of the continental congresses were active churchgoers

[DarkCloud]

But hancock pretty much just "funded" the revolution...

Adams was a calvinist- that is true.

But at least half of the important figures "were" deists.

[David Floyd]

Our founding fathers were free masons (deists) and atheists who in no way wished to chain America to fundamentalist views.

Yes, many were deists, but virtually none were atheists. Who exactly did you hear this from?