Rebdragon

Ah, in that case, one thing you can do is strengthen your legs so you can jump higher. Keep doing it on the trampoline until you can do it in your sleep so you can get some rotation down. Then keep doing it on the trampoline, but don't bounce. Stand still on the trampoline, and then do a front flip. The tension on the trampoline will give you some extra bounce than you would on the ground, but not so much as you would actually bouncing, so it's a good transition. Once you can do that, try standing on the bar of the trampoline and try front flipping. BE CAREFUL. I suggest jumping forward while doing this to prevent an accident on the bar. If you're not 100% confident, then DON'T DO IT. Once you're comfortable with these, then work on the ground. I'd recommend getting a spotter while you do it. The strengthening of your legs will allow you to jump high (high enough to get a full rotation), and the rotation practice on the trampoline will allow you to rotate faster. I've done it a few times on the ground, I can do it "in my sleep" too. Also, I've gotten rid of most of my confidence issues. Here's the problem; My trampoline has a net (Which has saved my neck more than a few times), making it impossible to do a flip into the trampoline. Wait a minute, that doesn't add up. I can take part of it down. Thanks for the advice people. :-) Much appreciated. If you're doing a front flip, for the love of God, put your hand up before you do the flip. I see so many people just chuck it without full raising their arms upward prior to jumping, and sometimes it's funny and the other times it's just scary. Raise you're arms so you can actually create rotational momentum, or expect butt pains for a while.

Aaaaaah so many liberals on this forum :0 I heard that there was an unknown source of funding for the mosque, though I haven't really cared enough about the issue to look into it. Can anyone who's investigated it thoroughly (besides magekillr) tell me wassup with that?

Stop calling him a deluded, programmer fanatic. I think he's wrong too but that's no reason to attack him for not agreeing with you. Think of it simply. For whatever reason, he thinks that human life starts at conception. Thus he believes that the inconvience of a human is not worth the death of another human. To him it's murder. You might not think that, but he does. This is basically the entire pro-life stance. Why are you treating it like an alien thing? At least listen to him instead of attacking.

Have you ever actually payed taxes? 70-80%? Where's the incentive to work? What is this, a fake sense of altruism? And dropping military funding? That's the one thing I'd pay for, apart from education. It's a vital aspect of a developed nation in a world where threats occur and need to be contained. That's the real world by the way.

Are you... are you kidding? The Romans were horrendous at staying monogamous! They had worse divorce rates than we do! And with the marriages that actually did last married men and women were both encouraged by society to cheat as much as they frikin' wanted! They also notably controlled pretty much all of the known world for a millenium. And divorced a lot for most of it. Really, "the good ol' days" weren't so perfect.

I get what he's saying. Parkour has become kind of viral on the web, so a lot of nerds who don't play actual sports like to pretend to be athletic by jumping over short fences and walls. Makes sense. Parkour is amazingly useful. True parkour is not glorified though- most people glorify freerunning, or tricking. True parkour takes a simplistic elegance to look good and work properly, that is get you from A to B ad fast as possible using as little energy as possible. The best just flow.

How'd you learn the double leg? I've been trying it thinking of it as a kick or a twist, and I really mess up the angle unless I have a block in front of me. How do you think about the move to make it work right? Also, love btwists. Just hyperd mine and I'm goin for a double, which is a [bleep].

READ this article. http://www.cracked.com/blog/crackeds-reluctant-advice-how-to-get-girls-to-like-you/ Its funny and reminded me if this thread. Women are not some object or equation to solve. They're people like you and me. I don't get why that concept is difficult.

The people have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property and happiness. They have a right to not have those things taken from them. They do not have a right to have those things handed to them. It is up to the individual to attain these things for himself, if he so desires. Anything beyond that is charity and good will, not a right. So no, people don't have a right to be given fish. Not healthcare, not property, not happiness. It is up to the individual to attain these things with his own will and freedom. Is welfare a bad thing? Not necessarily, sometimes people do need a little help in terrible times. But do they have a right to that help? I would say no, that help is a privilege.

Or, or, no one could be given fish. All fisherman would be expected to fish for themselves. Through a strong individual desire to obtain the most fish, most luxurious fish, and best fishing practices, the process of fishing will improve for the community and general standard of living will increase at an astounding rate, far beyond any system that just hands people other peoples fish and kills any incentive to fish more or better. Hong Kong has awesome fishing. Look how awesome they're fish are. Frikin sweet.

OMG. You like girls. Welcome to being a heterosexual guy. Now go flirt more.

So this is reform just for the sake of reform? Just playing around with trillions of dollars trying something new? This new system doesn't work. The reason the current one doesn't is because there is no connection between cost and the consumer. Because employers pay for insurance there's no need to self-ration care, and no self-rationing means overusage of healthcare, and overusage means increased costs. This bill not only expands the problem, but makes it worse by having the government pay for it rather than the consumer. Taxes will increase so people will want there money's worth and will use this new government system even more. Costs can only go up because of this. Do y'all have some links about this? Tried Googlin' and didn't find anything. I've only seen this new system compared to Massachussettes, and that one doesn't work. Doesn't Europe do what the US Government's trying to do...? Europe is sinking economically because it's moved so far left and socialist, while countries like China and India which remain relatively free-market economically are flourishing. On that point, in this current global economic system, doctors go to the US for jobs in true innovation; the people who look for new ways to combat cancer and heart disease come to the United States. More doctors immigrate to the US for work than any other nation. If the US goes socialist like the rest of the Western world, where do those doctors go? Where does the drive for innovation go?

Dude, no one is saying that. This is socialism, but that doesn't mean that you can just go down the gradient of taxation and call everything socialism. There's a line that's being crossed, as blurry as that line is.

Say that when you start paying taxes. I don't take anyone's opinion on this issue as meaning anything more than a pile of [cabbage] if they don't pay taxes. You don't pay taxes, you aren't part of the system. And if you aren't part of the system you don't understand the concept of cost. Things may be prettier tomorrow, but that's just because the costs aren't tangible to you. Apart from a meager couple grand I've made, I don't pay taxes since I don't have a full-time job. And I sure as hell don't make enough to get shafted by this bill.

I can't say words to express the stupidity of that post, so here's a nice picture instead. ... really? He makes a valid counterpoint and all you can do is act like a child? Studies do show what he says to be true. Democrats know this to be true, it's why they were and still are so wary of following Democrat leadership- they're losing votes. And all you do is facedesk. This.. this is why no one likes to debate politics here.

I don't know what rock you're under where all the women you date aren't talkative/chatty. I don't think that rock exists. I think you're just too nervousy chatty and don't let people cut in. I don't think you appreciate a little silence.

So you're not only a crappy driver who doesn't understand the concept of the left lane (a major problem among Americans), but you also turn into a psycho driver when you get passed. I know every driver thinks they're great and everyone else has kinks to work out, but nothing about what you said makes you sound in any way like a good or sane driver. If you're not passing, get the [bleep] in the right lane. If someone wants to pull fifteen over, get out of their way. If you really think there's a problem with their speed, let the cops deal with it. You're job is simply to not slow the flow of traffic. Work on that.

Do you realize that all you ever do is make stupid sophmoric jokes that no one laughs at? Seriously, whenever people are having a serious discussion you always seem to chime in with a terrible joke about how cool you think you are. It's been going on for a while. Please, stop. Or actually make your posts funny I guess.

Al Gore isn't a proper counterpoint for climate change. Sure he obviously doesn't believe in it, but he's a stupid politician so that doesn't really mean much. The truth lies in the truthseekers, the scientists, not the fools who represent it.

Ultimately anything we say here will hit a dead end because you and I believe different things about what the data says about climate change. From what I've seen all I know is that climate science is shaky at best, with highly speculative and often contradictory results. You believe, I think, that the world will end within the next century, maybe two if we don't change our ways, based on the data climate scientists have found. So based on that we won't really get anywhere arguing your first point, nor your unfunny joke. Holding people accountable for their beliefs with money is a smart but economically silly idea. If you could actually get people who believe in climate science to pay another 1% of their income, more power to you. Not that I can say anythong since it's just an idea, but I'd be very amazed if even a fraction of a fraction of people actually were willing to pay more. I know my position and speech is acrid. I'm not going to pretend that it's not. I don't believe in the silly philosophy that we can throw money at every specious media forced hot button topic and expect that to fix everything. Politicians warp the idea of green energy in a way that makes them look better, that gets them votes and supposedly makes the world better. After spending every free moment i had last week crunching numbers, all I can say is that green energy policy nowadays is nothing more than a facade. If climate scientists actually did what was right, rather than what got them political funding, money would be put into making carbon-free emissions economically viable. The world won't end in the next twenty years, why can't we wait that long to possibly double or triple the amount of green energy we can buy? So, as far as I know, your smug dogma is ridiculous. Your tone implies that your beliefs are written in holy stone, unequivocal and perfectly backed. The way your refer to people who don't agree with you as people who can "fend for themselves" pisses me off a great deal, to say the least.

I just spent ten hours a week over the past two weeks (20 total) doing an engineering project for one of my classes. This project is a "Green Neutrality Project" for the city my college is in. Over these past twenty hours I and four other members of my group researched, consulted, and crunched numbers on every possible option for making our town completely carbon neutral. We calculated solar energy based on irradiance per square meter and dozens of available solar panels, biomass based on tree density, spacing, and energy density, wind based on wind speed and Bernoulli, hydro based on basic power equations, and heat based on Carnot engines. We also looked into various other options too. To show for all our hard work, were able to power less than a third of the small town with nearly all of the available green energy available, and that third costs more than double what coal based electricity costs now to power the enter town. So, basic idea? Green energy production now is just self gratification. Money should be put into research, because without any major scientific breakthroughs green energy will never ever be economically feasible as a true replacement. It just can't happen with the technology we have nowadays.

I'm not saying homosexuality is a choice, in the vast majority of cases I know of it's not. I'm just saying it's possible, at least for girls.

You know that's weird, right?