New Republican Idea: Punishing Rape Victims with Jail Time

Page 7 of 9 First ... 56789 Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Russianog View Post
    HAHA the only people that you'd most likely encounter talking to at any VFW are the motivated retired prior enlisted who did well in the marine corp, only because that lifestyle fit them. They are far too proud to say some ill words. Ill but truthful. The majority of people don't mesh well with the lifestyle of the marine corp nor with the culture as you call it.

    It's sad to see people like you, clearly brainwashed acting as if there is nothing wrong, but hey no problem, I only got a little bit of time left, finish out this deployment, sit in RBE and get some college done and be on my way. Meanwhile if anyone has any questions about what it's really like, or whether or not it's a good choice for them, ill be glad to answer them... with zero bias.

    I am actually curious to see how many here would go ahead and polish up their CO's footwear. We know you would because you're all about that life.

    OH and don't spin this like i'm ****ting on the enlisted of today by demeaning or bringing shame to the marine corp. I do my job, and I do it well. I very well respect people left and right of me, and certain individuals who have demonstrated the qualities and capabilities of a leader... But there is a lot I do not respect, and do not agree with, and I can vouch for probably 70% of my battalion/company as they would agree with me.
    Of course I didn't like everything about my time in.. but I most certainly didn't go on a public forum and complain about it, or damn well didn't compare it to slavery, or tout that insubordination is the cool thing to do these days in the "New Military".
    The Historic PES Legend


  2. And if you're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, read - https://www.dropbox.com/s/11fx10q2it...c%20Racism.PDF
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Of course I didn't like everything about my time in.. but I most certainly didn't go on a public forum and complain about it, or damn well didn't compare it to slavery, or tout that insubordination is the cool thing to do these days in the "New Military".
    So you just let other people go ahead and sign up and learn the hard way? I'd rather just let them know the facts, and they can join if they want based on what they are really getting themselves into. Again, if you try and compare it DIRECTLY to slavery as it was 130 years ago... you will run into inconsistencies. If you compare it to the very broad idea of slavery. Discipline and structure can only go so far... In the end, you end up feeling like you're either in prison, or a slave. Due to the simple fact that the freedom of thought is looked down upon. People are placed in leadership roles, that should not be there. the list goes on... but i wont anger you any further with it... TBH i'm tired of having this discussion with you, you can continue it civilly in PM's if you want, or another thread... but I, like everyone else, do warrant my opinion and outlook on the situation. Don't be quick to call it insubordination. Insubordination in the eyes of some document meant to "justify" disciplinary action by those who can't even make a character judgement about someone. Who are reading off an SRB as to describe the individual.

    Deuces

  4. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    You keep saying I'm off topic, yet you won't say why. Just because you keep repeating something to yourself doesn't exactly make it true, even if you are deluding yourself. Read again, The Constitution was ratified BEFORE the Bill Of Rights. The Bill Of Rights was meant to amend the EXISTING Constitution, which at the time PROTECTED slavery and did nothing to change that. <----Now refer back to your statement (blanket at that without context) about the Bill of Rights and how it's connected to slavery. Then reread the direct articles posted from the Constitution, direct wording. You're either being obtuse or more likely simply a lost cause.
    Amend:
    1: to put right; especially : to make emendations in (as a text)
    2a : to change or modify for the better : improve <amend the situation>
    b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition <amend a constitution>

    Yes, the text of one documnt was added to. The intent of the addition was to protect individual civil liberties and limit government power. Your ties are irrelevant for like th tenth time.

    Irregardless, the Bill of Rights is a specific group of constitutional amendments with a specific purpose. This document is what Jim was referencing.

    I've said why you are off topic in almost every post this morning, let me make it clear for you though.

    You are off topic because the conversation is the Bill of Rights (alone) vs. Jefferson as a proponent of slavery; spinning off of which makes the most credible historical source.

    Show me where the Bill of Rights supports slavery.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    It really requires a literal translation for you. Despite its seemingly inclusive wording, the Bill of Rights did not apply to all Americans—and it wouldn’t for more than 130 years. At the time of its ratification, the “people” referenced in the amendments were understood to be land-owning white men only. Blacks only received equal protection under the law in 1868, and even then it was purely on paper. Women couldn’t vote in all states before 1920, and Native Americans did not achieve full citizenship until 1924. <------These are facts, what more do you need to deduce that the B.O.R did not offer blanket protection to all Americans, despite you being willfully obtuse.
    And once again (maybe twice again?), the fact individuals in power chose not to apply the content of the Bill of Rights to all doesn't nullify the bill of rights itself, which is the discussion point. Nobody is discussing the false or absent application of the bill, but the bill itself, from the first post. You are trying to spin this topic because you know you are wrong.

    Individuals in power who chose not to apply the bill to all, such as Jefferson, are not the bill of rights themselves but were shady characters in many respects and are not the credible source the bill of rights is for American philosophical discussion such as the conversation you and jim were having. You are only discrediting Jefferson further by acknowledging the fact he ignored the bill of rights for a large portion of the population.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    You keep saying I'm off topic, yet you won't say why. Just because you keep repeating something to yourself doesn't exactly make it true, even if you are deluding yourself. Read again, The Constitution was ratified BEFORE the Bill Of Rights. The Bill Of Rights was meant to amend the EXISTING Constitution, which at the time PROTECTED slavery and did nothing to change that. <----Now refer back to your statement (blanket at that without context) about the Bill of Rights and how it's connected to slavery. Then reread the direct articles posted from the Constitution, direct wording. You're either being obtuse or more likely simply a lost cause.
    So you can say the Constitution protected slavery, fine....but the Bill of Rights eliminated slavery and granted legal freedoms to all slaves. Those who continued slavery were simply breaking law as the Bill of Rights did not give freedoms to any particular exclusive group.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Russianog View Post
    So you just let other people go ahead and sign up and learn the hard way? I'd rather just let them know the facts, and they can join if they want based on what they are really getting themselves into. Again, if you try and compare it DIRECTLY to slavery as it was 130 years ago... you will run into inconsistencies. If you compare it to the very broad idea of slavery. Discipline and structure can only go so far... In the end, you end up feeling like you're either in prison, or a slave. Due to the simple fact that the freedom of thought is looked down upon. People are placed in leadership roles, that should not be there. the list goes on... but i wont anger you any further with it... TBH i'm tired of having this discussion with you, you can continue it civilly in PM's if you want, or another thread... but I, like everyone else, do warrant my opinion and outlook on the situation. Don't be quick to call it insubordination. Insubordination in the eyes of some document meant to "justify" disciplinary action by those who can't even make a character judgement about someone. Who are reading off an SRB as to describe the individual.

    Deuces
    This is silly, I know if you join a High School football team or wrestling team there are alot of things happening behind the scenes that are simply not discussed when you sign up.

    Im not trying to knock you, yes I know things can be rough but you should just suck it up, finish your contract and then get into politics if you really want to change anything. Ranting slavery doesnt really look good to people.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  8. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    So you can say the Constitution protected slavery, fine....but the Bill of Rights eliminated slavery and granted legal freedoms to all slaves. Those who continued slavery were simply breaking law as the Bill of Rights did not give freedoms to any particular exclusive group.
    And now comes the civil war, where application was considered.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    This is silly, I know if you join a High School football team or wrestling team there are alot of things happening behind the scenes that are simply not discussed when you sign up.

    Im not trying to knock you, yes I know things can be rough but you should just suck it up, finish your contract and then get into politics if you really want to change anything. Ranting slavery doesnt really look good to people.
    LOL you can't even compare the politics of highschool football or wrestling to those of the marine corp.

    It's not like it's rough on my emotions and i'm whining like a little girl... it's just not all it's made out to be. I don't care what doesn't look good to people, i know what me and my peers see this as.

    I already said that I have no problem with finishing the contract... and i've thought about an entry in politics, i prefer the field of science over it.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Russianog View Post
    LOL you can't even compare the politics of highschool football or wrestling to those of the marine corp.

    It's not like it's rough on my emotions and i'm whining like a little girl... it's just not all it's made out to be. I don't care what doesn't look good to people, i know what me and my peers see this as.

    I already said that I have no problem with finishing the contract... and i've thought about an entry in politics, i prefer the field of science over it.
    I know the Marine's is a whole different ball game. The point is you never really get in life what you sign up for. That high school football experience is just an example.

    So whats the top beef your having? Just wondering, I did read your posts but I want to be clear on your top issues.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Bigcountry08 View Post
    You know ax1, jim, southpaw, and tex all had naked chicks sitting next to them last night while they were all flaming on each other.

    chick : can we go to bed now, I want to have sex.

    Guys : No! Im about to burn this guy good, just 12 more posts till I lead him into my trap.
    Jokes on you, I did have sex last night.



    On a more related note:

    Even though its been pointed out by others (many times), the Bill of Rights doesn't exclude anyone. You even said it was UNDERSTOOD to exclude certain people but that is not the fault of the Bill itself but the fault of those who were implementing it at the time.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post

    Factual yet off topic and consequently irrelevent. It took me awhile to reply because while I did not get laid last night as Country pointed out (Aunt Flo is visiting), I did get a blowjob this morning while you were copy pasting facts that don't pertain to the discussion. But I'm back cupcake, don't worry.

    By the way, the sky is blue, grass is green and trees often house birds. Jefferson owned property under the sky, full of grass and containing trees he most likely propagated so these are all elements of the institution of slavery by default.

    Substitute Madison for Jefferson and we have another interesting point. In your mind, because the bill of rights was introduced by Madison and Madison owned slaves, the bill of rights itself is connected to slavery in the same way that a man who leveraged personal power to increase slavery directly is connected to slavery. Complete bull**** but whatever. By tying the bill of rights and Jefferson's direct presidential charges together in your mind, and then discrediting the bill of rights, you have also discredited your own "on par" source or at the very least given Jim's the same credibility you give your own (sad).

    Your facts are off topic, your logic within your own off topic argument is now circular and your deductive reasoning skills are at about a third grade level. This has simply gotten ridiculous.
    Good on you Texasguy !!! Get it where you can ! I lucked out last night myself actualy.
    Bigcountry's Getting a little smaller: Epi/Stano Log

    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/cycle-info/231194-bigcountrys-getting-little.html

  13. Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    And once again (maybe twice again?), the fact individuals in power chose not to apply the content of the Bill of Rights to all doesn't nullify the bill of rights itself, which is the discussion point. Nobody is discussing the false or absent application of the bill, but the bill itself, from the first post. You are trying to spin this topic because you know you are wrong.

    Individuals in power who chose not to apply the bill to all, such as Jefferson, are not the bill of rights themselves but were shady characters in many respects and are not the credible source the bill of rights is for American philosophical discussion such as the conversation you and jim were having. You are only discrediting Jefferson further by acknowledging the fact he ignored the bill of rights for a large portion of the population.
    All of the founders ignored the Bill of Rights, since it was NOT applied to protect those mentioned in my examples. Who's discussing "nullification?" The discussion point here is the application thereof. You're making a broad interpretation and disregarding its application.The two go hand-in-hand. Upon its initial application, the B.O.R did nothing to alter, nor did it seek to protect the freedoms of those examples I had listed above. We can discuss peripherally the intentions, motivations or interpretations etc, still does alter the facts. The B.O.R. did nothing to change what was already ratified in the Constitution.

    Let me pose the question this way and please respond and be specific. Did it or did it not offer blanketed protections to those examples that I had listed? I could write freedom for all on a wall and if it's not applied to ALL, doesn't that then change the context of the statement/guarantee? Or are you just interested in making your own broad interpretations? I listed the actual articles in the Constitution, of which were ratified prior to the B.O.R.

    The Constitution was signed on September 1787 and sent to the Congress. Eleven days later, it was submitted to the states for ratification. The Constitution included a set of specific guarantees, chief among them, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, due process of law and freedom from governmental search and seizure. The people ratified the Constitution only after its framers pledged to add to it such protections. Congress added those protections in 1789, and in 1791 two-thirds of the states ratified the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which became known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights however, did not end the enslavement of blacks and their descendents, nor did it uphold the rights of Native Americans, women, children, gay people, prisoners, the mentally and physically disabled, and others, all of which CAME MANY YEARS LATER. Those are facts. Now you keep asking me where does it implicitly state that blacks were not free in the Bill of Rights? The facts are clear, as they were not offered protections (equal protections under the law) per the articles that I had listed a few quotes back, which is the actual wording...NOT MY OWN.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post

    The Constitution was signed on September 1787 and sent to the Congress. Eleven days later, it was submitted to the states for ratification. The Constitution included a set of specific guarantees, chief among them, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, due process of law and freedom from governmental search and seizure. The people ratified the Constitution only after its framers pledged to add to it such protections. Congress added those protections in 1789, and in 1791 two-thirds of the states ratified the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which became known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights however, did not end the enslavement of blacks and their descendents, nor did it uphold the rights of Native Americans, women, children, gay people, prisoners, the mentally and physically disabled, and others, all of which CAME MANY YEARS LATER. Those are facts. Now you keep asking me where does it implicitly state that blacks were not free in the Bill of Rights? The facts are clear, as they were not offered protections (equal protections under the law) per the articles that I had listed a few quotes back, which is the actual wording...NOT MY OWN.
    The Bill of Rights doesnt not belong to an exclusive club, there is absolutely zero evidence of it. It's fault of man for violating Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Rights. Just because you found some obscure comments in the original document, or found that some of the founding fathers has slaves doesnt amount to anything specifically in regards that the Bill of Rights exempts minorities.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  15. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    The Constitution was signed on September 1787 and sent to the Congress. Eleven days later, it was submitted to the states for ratification. The Constitution included a set of specific guarantees, chief among them, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, due process of law and freedom from governmental search and seizure. The people ratified the Constitution only after its framers pledged to add to it such protections. Congress added those protections in 1789, and in 1791 two-thirds of the states ratified the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which became known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights however, did not end the enslavement of blacks and their descendents, nor did it uphold the rights of Native Americans, women, children, gay people, prisoners, the mentally and physically disabled, and others, all of which CAME MANY YEARS LATER. Those are facts. Now you keep asking me where does it implicitly state that blacks were not free in the Bill of Rights? The facts are clear, as they were not offered protections (equal protections under the law) per the articles that I had listed a few quotes back, which is the actual wording...NOT MY OWN.
    Does the Constitution even specify that blacks are to be the sole slaves? Did you know hundreds of thousands of Irish (the forgotten slaves) have been sold as slaves in the past as well?
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  16. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    Does the Constitution even specify that blacks are to be the sole slaves? Did you know hundreds of thousands of Irish (the forgotten slaves) have been sold as slaves in the past as well?
    And Southpaw....doesnt the goverment take away the fruits of your labor or suffer sever consequences? You are 1/4 slave yourself. You spend 25% of your entire labor life being a slave.

    As we can see the fault of man, not the Bill of Rights even to this day are in violation. Its all from people.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  17. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    Does the Constitution even specify that blacks are to be the sole slaves? Did you know hundreds of thousands of Irish (the forgotten slaves) have been sold as slaves in the past as well?
    We're spinning our wheels here. Look I don't know how to make it more clear, perhaps you can refer to Josh's link.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    We're spinning our wheels here. Look I don't know how to make it more clear, perhaps you can refer to Josh's link.
    How about instead of reading a book just reading the Bill of Rights and clearly seeing there is no exemption to race.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  19. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    All of the founders ignored the Bill of Rights, since it was NOT applied to protect those mentioned in my examples. Who's discussing "nullification?" The discussion point here is the application thereof. You're making a broad interpretation and disregarding its application.The two go hand-in-hand. Upon its initial application, the B.O.R did nothing to alter, nor did it seek to protect the freedoms of those examples I had listed above. We can discuss peripherally the intentions, motivations or interpretations etc, still does alter the facts. The B.O.R. did nothing to change what was already ratified in the Constitution.

    Let me pose the question this way and please respond and be specific. Did it or did it not offer blanketed protections to those examples that I had listed? I could write freedom for all on a wall and if it's not applied to ALL, doesn't that then change the context of the statement/guarantee? Or are you just interested in making your own broad interpretations? I listed the actual articles in the Constitution, of which were ratified prior to the B.O.R.

    The Constitution was signed on September 1787 and sent to the Congress. Eleven days later, it was submitted to the states for ratification. The Constitution included a set of specific guarantees, chief among them, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, due process of law and freedom from governmental search and seizure. The people ratified the Constitution only after its framers pledged to add to it such protections. Congress added those protections in 1789, and in 1791 two-thirds of the states ratified the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which became known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights however, did not end the enslavement of blacks and their descendents, nor did it uphold the rights of Native Americans, women, children, gay people, prisoners, the mentally and physically disabled, and others, all of which CAME MANY YEARS LATER. Those are facts. Now you keep asking me where does it implicitly state that blacks were not free in the Bill of Rights? The facts are clear, as they were not offered protections (equal protections under the law) per the articles that I had listed a few quotes back, which is the actual wording...NOT MY OWN.
    The discussion is the Bill of Rights upholding the institution of slavery vs. Thomas Jefferson upholding the institution of slavery.

    Please show me where, in the Bill of Rights, the institution of slavery is upheld.

    All you can show is that certain individuals (including Jefferson) in power did not allow the Bill of Rights to extend to certain groups. This is exactly what I've been saying. The Bill of Rights does not uphold slavery at all but Thomas Jefferson did by exercising power outside of the Bill of Rights to prevent certain people from enjoying the freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights. His decision to exclude certain people, although supported by the majority during his time, doesn't add content to the Bill of Rights.

    The addendum of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, by definition, was simply added text, text intended to grant certain personal liberties (ignored by Jefferson) and limit government power. It is not an endorsement of slavery.

    You are off your own base and don't even know it.

    Now staying on topic, show me where in the Bill of Rights slavery is upheld.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    How about instead of reading a book just reading the Bill of Rights and clearly seeing there is no exemption to race.
    Lol right. Here's a question... "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," did this right ALSO extend to slaves/blacks, per the Bill of Rights?

  21. Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post


    You are off your own base and don't even know it.
    Do I need to post it again?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCxj...e_gdata_player

    Again, SP is the one in blue :srs:

  22. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post

    Lol right. Here's a question... "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," did this right ALSO extend to slaves/blacks, per the Bill of Rights?
    Are you Forrest Gump?

    Where does it say that it doesn't extend to those people?

    Note that I didn't ask when was it not applied to them, only that it was not written in a way that would exclude anyone.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by jimbuick View Post
    Do I need to post it again?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCxj...e_gdata_player

    Again, SP is the one in blue :srs:

    There's a reason why I hardly reply to you specifically, it's utterly boring. Love the opinions though, keep them coming.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by Bigcountry08 View Post
    Good on you Texasguy !!! Get it where you can ! I lucked out last night myself actualy.
    Fantastic news! I tried for the ass but not this time. Must've been my wasted time on the internet!

  25. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Lol right. Here's a question... "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," did this right ALSO extend to slaves/blacks, per the Bill of Rights?
    You mean per Jefferson. And no, per Jefferson they sure didn't.

  26. Quote Originally Posted by jimbuick View Post
    Do I need to post it again?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCxj...e_gdata_player

    Again, SP is the one in blue :srs:
    Hilarious, I watched it this time, and agree.

  27. Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    You mean per Jefferson. And no, per Jefferson they sure didn't.
    No. My question is very specific. I'm speaking to your response specifically in regards to the B.O.R. Again, (just answer the question) - "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," did this right ALSO extend to slaves/blacks, per the Bill of Rights?

  28. Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post

    No. My question is very specific. I'm speaking to your response specifically in regards to the B.O.R. Again, (just answer the question) - "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," did this right ALSO extend to slaves/blacks, per the Bill of Rights?
    It's supposed to and it sure came in handy when blacks were armed during the civil war and times of kkk.

    If a minority is denied the 2nd amendment It's illegal.
    This message was paid for by the Russians

  29. Quote Originally Posted by jimbuick View Post
    Are you Forrest Gump?

    Where does it say that it doesn't extend to those people?

    Note that I didn't ask when was it not applied to them, only that it was not written in a way that would exclude anyone.
    I guess you require a literal translation. Slavery is EXPLICITLY protected in the Constitution, of which was once again ratified prior to the B.O.R., which did nothing to lift, alter, change, modify that protection. Per your statement above, those groups were excluded until MANY years later. You're wrong and you continue be wrong, even willfully. Look at your own statement, only that it was not written in a way that would exclude anyone, however, it did.....

    Article 4 is quite clear... No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

    That left slavery as a matter of states rights and slavery was still set in stone. Also free states no longer held the right to harbor fugitive slaves. If only the slaves of the day had a Captain Crunch secret decoder ring, they would have realized they were free all along and could just walk away from their slave masters some 70 years before waiting on the Emancipation Declaration or the even the 13th Amendment.

  30. The Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to Native Americans or to the Africans imported to labor as slaves in the South. Moreover, Congress and the Supreme Court often sanctioned pervasive inequalities. Per the following; In 1830, Congress approved the Indian Removal Act, which authorized the relocation of Native Americans west of the Mississippi River. And the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed at the end of the Civil War, excluded Native Americans even as it ostensibly extended citizenship and "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings" to all people.


    The Bill of Rights did not apply to the slaves, who were totally excluded from citizenship and all rights attending it. When the slaves were emancipated and granted citizenship after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was incorporated into the Bill of Rights to prohibit states from denying the vote, due process or equal protection of the laws on the basis of race. Which we know was not the case, following the Reconstruction period, which provided a brief respite for African Americans from systematic persecution, enactment of the "Black Codes" and "Jim Crow" laws, returning blacks to a status of mere nominal freedom. (So yes, the Bill of Rights completely set them free)



    Women, too, were largely excluded from the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights. Although the first American Women's Rights Convention, meeting in Seneca Falls, New York in 1848, demanded women's suffrage, 70 more years would pass before that demand would be met. Indeed, in 1873 the Supreme Court ruled that the "law of the creator" required women to be wives and mothers not professionals because of their "natural and proper timidity and delicacy." In 1879, the Court reaffirmed state suffrage laws that disfranchised women.

    Now does it implicitly state in the B.O.R. that blacks are free? No, it did not. If they were free, why did it take 70 years per the Emancipation Declaration. My point is (and it will be lost here I already know that) is that the B.O.R. did not offer blanket protections, period.Even if you require literal wording as evidence of such.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Need new routine idea's
    By Chemist63 in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-18-2005, 10:00 AM
  2. New PCT idea...
    By ManBeast in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-10-2004, 03:07 PM
  3. New cycle idea
    By Sanosuke in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-24-2003, 06:15 PM
Log in
Log in