Claressa Shields LOSES to Savannah Marshall

Colour me shocked that you're already playing the victim card for Shields. How's the Lion's Den crew holding up these days?

 

Its a great fight for Womans boxing, it could go either way.

 

Your rebuttal makes absolutely zero sense, you understand that. Right?

1. This content is protected
   
   When have you ever seen me excuse a POS in society? Unlike you, who (depending on skin colour) will defend your preferred fighter to the nth degree. I used to be a fan of Canelo, but as soon as I discovered he was a POS I strongly dislike him - the same goes for Kovalev and Mayweather.
   
   
2. This content is protected
   
   There's more to be said about someone like yourself that excuses a criminal that is happy to king hit an elderly man and almost kill him.
   
   For what it's worth, I've explored over 18 countries on this planet - so I think the nativity of your posts above reaffirms that it is in fact you that needs to get out of your own environment.

 

I support American boxing and it's been a great few months for American boxing which makes haters like you sick.
Spence
Stevenson
Charlo
Benavidez
Tank
Haney
Shields schooling Marshall will be another one. Lmfao!

 

Cmon bro, do you even know what the true standard for poverty is? Even those inbred hicks in the Appalachians are able to survive perfectly fine despite the fact that they're unemployable. It's only people who resign to a life of squalor that actually end up that way, anyone who actually tries to make a living for themselves with proper effort ends up being perfectly fine. That kind of opportunity isn't available in a lot of places. I don't even live in America anyway, but I can tell you that in Ireland where I'm from no one is impoverished unless they make themselves so by being total failures.

 

A £15 minimum wage would just cause inflation and destroy many upstart businesses and small business. It only benefits corporations which can outbid their smaller competitors and essentially monopolise whichever market they're in. That's not the right way to tackle the issue seeing as it only makes the current economic problems worse.
Rent control also encourages developers to invest in luxury housing with a few rent capped apartments as it's more profitable than building affordable housing which is all capped at a rate too low to profit from. This is seen in most cities that opt to implement rent control.
Housebuilding is certainly a good fix, especially high rise developments in central locations and well connected suburban areas.
I agree that there should be more development in the technological field to tackle climate change. The problem is that people prefer telling everyone to live austere lives as penance for the sins of indulgence. This is merely a revitalisation of religious puritanism in the guise of supposed ecological concern and not a real way to tackle the issue.
The problem with taxing the rich too much for their comfort is that they'll end up moving their assets to tax havens, leaving you with nothing. The other problem is that most of their value is stored in assets, which when the government try to seize in the form of tax payment, ends up killing the value of the stocks as investors would flee, effectively destroying whatever value the assets had.
Economics is more complex than you seem to think it is.

 

Taxing the rich won't happen. Too many stupid poor people think taxing the rich is bad.

 

Marshall turns her in to dust..

 

It's obvious that Shields came from a tough environment. Her attitude, behavior, ambitiousness proves that.

But they don't deduct points in a boxing match for being a disrespectful person outside the ring. Some might think Shields is arrogant, disrespectful, bad-mannered, but she will still beat Marshall. Because she is the better boxer.

 

Shields is a total bum. The "GWOAT" solely in her own mind. Marshall is the first semi-decent fighter she has faced in her entire career, including in the Olympics. Shields is leaving the ring with her first loss.

 

The standard for poverty in America is not the same as it is worldwide. Someone living in a dingy apartment who struggles with their finances is considered impoverished even though that'd be considered perfectly good living in a third world country. Also who genuinely takes poverty rates for literal children into account? Which children do you know of who have plenty of money and can live on their own? This sounds like the statistics for neglected children, which will inherently mean that they're disadvantaged. Totally irrelevant basically.