- 06-12-2005, 04:25 PM
One point I'd like to make, because people love to compare teen use of alcohol and tobacco to steroids.
Light to moderate drinking for a few years is highly unlikely to cause long term damage to a person. Any damage that does occur would likely occur whether the person is 16 or 46.
Light to moderate smoking for a few years is highly unlikely to cause long term damage to a person. Again, any damage that does occur would likely occur no matter what the person't age.
Even trying crack, cocaine, and other hard drugs a few times will not cause permanent damage to the vast majority of people.
One cycle of steroids (particularly a high dose cycle) can cause permanent, irreversible damage to a teenage male. Growth plates can close and the HPTA can be permanently affected.
So is AAS really all that more dangerous then many drugs that available via a prescription? Viagra and Cialis is now reported to cause some serious vision problems in many patients that were prescribed the drug.
One other thing. I'm sick of this "there's a war going on and they're worried about steroids" bull****. Senators, congressmen, and presidents are elected to deal with any and all issues that arise. They can't just focus their attention on a few key issues. And they also can't magically fix problems overnight, like the state of our schools.
If you all want someone to blame, blame the media. The politicians are just responding to the outcry by the public that was created by the media by sensationalizing the steroid "problem." It's not Bush, McCain, or anybody else that need be blamed. It's the whores in the media who play off people's fears. What do you expect these congressmen to do when 20/20 runs some kind of expose' and their office gets a couple thousand calls the next day and ten thousand letters the next week? Can you blame them?
- 06-12-2005, 07:24 PM
Originally Posted by Nullifidian
But will you honestly say the pharmacutical companies don't like the fact that the cost of entry into their industry is so high that they can expect virtually zero competition that isn't already on the market? Can you honestly say they would be perfectly happy to give up the hinderance of the FDA if it also meant giving up the protection of government granted patents for their drugs? How much medicare and medicaid money ends up in their pockets, and would they like to see the end of that nifty government wealth transfer program? How much tax money gets funneled into the research and development of medications for politcally correct diseases, and would they like to see an end to that? Would they like to see a free market in health care, which would seriously change the structure and workings of health insurance and make it much harder to charge such high amounts for their drugs? A lot of currently covered costs would end up being paid out of pocket if that happened, and not a lot of people can afford $1500 a month medications. Would they like to see a shift of focus in the medical industry from alleopathy to homeopathy, which could lead to fewer people needing their products because they're leading overall more healthy lives?
Like any alliance between the government and private industry, the pharmacutical companies often get ****ed in the ass, but they also get a reach around every now and then. It's the nature of the game. The rest of us just have sore asses.
06-12-2005, 07:30 PM
I expect them to realize there are more important things they could be spending their time on. I expect them to realize that a few people self destructing because of this or that substance is not cause for banning it and trying to throw all users in prison. In short I expect them to be intelligent. If the public is in an uproar I expect them to educate themselves and then try to explain to the public that they should calm the hell down. For me, blame always falls on the person who acted. The media didn't enact prohibition, the people who passed and keep passing such laws did. As such, I hold them responsible.Originally Posted by jrkarp
And I think in general when people say "Don't they have anything better to do" or "isn't there a war they should be worrying about," what they mean is "Shouldn't they stay the hell out of my business and actually spend their time and money hunting down people who are causing problems for other people, not people who they have some asthetic disagreement with, or who lead lifestyles they don't agree with, or who use substances they don't like?"
06-12-2005, 09:23 PM
Educate themselves? Most doctors will tell you how bad steroids are for you. It takes some digging to find out the truth. Tell the public to calm down? Politics doesn't work that way. When the media is united in voice telling people how evil steroids are, if a congressman says, "No, they're actually safe if used properly," who is the public going to believe? And further, even if the public believes the congressman, half of them are going to be pissed because they think that will encourage their kids to use them. In a perfect world, what you suggest would be the right thing to do. But it doesn't work that way because we don't live in a perfect world.Originally Posted by CDB
Once again, they are elected to respond to all kinds of perceived problems, whether we think they are problems or not. Frankly, there is serious potential for teens to screw themselves up by using steroids. I don't think that more regulation is the answer, I think that education is the answer. Unfortunately, regulation is much quicker and cheaper. I don't agree with what the government did, but I understand why.And I think in general when people say "Don't they have anything better to do" or "isn't there a war they should be worrying about," what they mean is "Shouldn't they stay the hell out of my business and actually spend their time and money hunting down people who are causing problems for other people, not people who they have some asthetic disagreement with, or who lead lifestyles they don't agree with, or who use substances they don't like?"
06-12-2005, 09:32 PM
Understand where you're coming from, but I just either don't agree or expect more or different. I understand why some people decide a life of crime is their only option, I still want them caught and in prison for doing it though.Originally Posted by jrkarp
06-12-2005, 10:17 PM
I'd love to expect more from my elected officials, I really would. It's just unfortunate that we don't get from them what we deserve.
06-13-2005, 02:30 PM
Gone are the days when politicians stood up for what is right, not what is popular.Originally Posted by jrkarp
06-13-2005, 03:08 PM
06-13-2005, 03:43 PM
06-13-2005, 03:52 PM
Truth. The people wanted Washington to be king, not president and would have re-elected him until he died. He refused to run after his second term because he firmly believed in the Republic.Originally Posted by davisville64
06-14-2005, 02:02 PM
FDR? You must be kidding. That guy was the biggest scumbag one can imagine to become president. He almost did a better job of instituting Marxist principles (New Deal) into America than Lenin in Russia. And that's without mentioning all the FDR "conspiracy theories" such as his involvement in Pearl Harbor or his public promise to keep America out of WW2 while secretly doing everything he could to force us into war.When was that???
"You know I am a juggler, and I never let my right hand know what my left hand does. I'm perfectly willing to mislead and tell untruths..." - FDR, May 1941
06-15-2005, 09:44 AM
FDR was our nation's greatest president since Washington. Criticize him as a person all you want, he brought us out of a depression and through a war. He most certainly did do what was unpopular on many occasions because for that situation it was the right thing to do.
You may not like some of the institutions put in place, like welfare and social security. Yet during his Presidency they saved tens of thousands of lives if not millions. Unless you speak to people who were alive and poor during the depression, you will never have any clue as to how bad it was. Without welfare and soup kitchens a large percentage of our nation would have starved to death or died from overexposure (too cold in the winter with no heat, etc.) Now adays there is always a job, even if it is just minimum wage, there is always a job. Back then there weren't jobs. Not even for the lowest positions possible. There simply was no possible way for the vast majority of the lower class to get ANY money at all except through welfare.
Welfare is not needed anymore. This much is clear. Yet during that time period where the number of people outnumbered the jobs 4 to 1 or worse, it was positively necessary.
06-15-2005, 12:01 PM
That is the most absurd assertion I think I have ever heard. FDR did more to help communism than Stalin. In fact, he was good friends with Stalin. The New Deal was a communist document and failed miserably. FDR's policies not only extended the great Depression, they made it worse. This man did not care about America, he did not care about who starved. He sought to make war with Hitler at any cost and made major concessions with Russia when a time when we could have crushed Russia, thus causing the ensuing Cold War. He kept stories of the Holocaust out of U.S. media and interned thousands of Japanese in camps here in the U.S. His complete lack of a moral compass, combined with his attempts to bankrupt and destroy the solvency of the United States- even his "alleged" involvement in the planning of Pearl Harbor alone- make him a traitor, not a great man. Perhaps you have not studied him closely enough. Extremely popular, extremely charismatic, extremely anti-American. Teddy Roosevelt was a great president. FDR was not.FDR was our nation's greatest president since Washington. Criticize him as a person all you want, he brought us out of a depression and through a war.
06-15-2005, 01:45 PM
The opinions you just expressed can be explained in one word: "brainwashing."Originally Posted by Brooklyn
I think you've been reading too many of CDB's posts. Claiming that FDR's policies extended the Depression is beyond ridiculous. He put millions of people to work. If not for projects like the Lincoln Tunnels, the GWB, and the Empire State Building, millions would have not only been out of work but dead from starvation. What good is an economic recovery if that effort results in millions of people dead from starvation? You have a warped sense of morals if you think that it is worth a few million lives to starvation just to shave a year or two off of a recession. Plus to top it off, you have absolutely positive NO evidence whatsoever supporting your claim. None. Zero. Goose egg.
The biggest contributing factor to ending the Depression was WWII. It created and spurred on new industries which then required new jobs. Those new jobs put people to work. Once people were working they had income and fewer people were out on the street with no way to survive. I would argue that no policy that could ever be put into place would have ended the Great Depression any earlier because of that. It took NEW industries with never-before-seen product demand. This would not have happened for anything other than WWII.
As for your arguments about forcing us into WWII, that is the only war in all of history that even peacenicks admit was necessary. It was the only time where we were fighting something truly evil: the nazis. While there was a large anti-semitic sentiment in the USA, the human rights violations of the Nazis and their genecidal policies were something matched only by Stalin and his regime. All I would argue against the US in WWII is that they didn't continue on afterwards and push into the Soviet Union. Patton wanted to, but they didn't let him. Stalin was as great an evil in his treatment of his people and in his push world conquest. We had greater industrial might than the Soviet Union, AND we had the atomic bomb when no one else did. It would have cost probably double the lives to go into the Soviet Union, but it would have saved countless more (plus avoiding Korea, Vietnam, and a host of smaller Cold War incidents). But that point isn't even relavent to FDR since he was dead by then.
I think a lot of people fail to understand that there isn't one economic policy that will fit all situations. That's what gives this country its strength; its ability to change its own policies and economic structure at the will of its legislature. In some times of desperate need, liberal policies do actually work better. In most situations I would argue that fiscal conservative policies TEND to work better (obviously there are some limits you want to put on how conservative). Private markets do not regulate themselves, they only do what is in the best interests of making money. Monopolies are in businesses best interests but against the people's. Monopolies allow businesses to set whatever price they want and people are forced to pay it; you wind up with the situation you had in coal mining towns before Unions: people were OWNED by the company; it was just slavery. So the idea that business will regulate itself in the best interests of the people is patently absurd. We have mountains of historical PROOF that such extremes in capitalist policies fail as miserably as feudalism and in may cases worse.
06-15-2005, 06:19 PM
I think lincoln was better than him. Freed slaves and won civil war.Originally Posted by Nullifidian
06-15-2005, 07:08 PM
Lincoln also had a great amount of influence in CAUSING the civil war in the first place.Originally Posted by davisville64
06-16-2005, 05:32 PM
Many people still don't realize that yes he did free the slaves because of the North's victory over the South but his initial intentions was not to free the slaves. Plus many of his policies actually extended the civil war.
He allowed trains to cross over to the south and west to transport medicines, food rations, ammo, supplies to troops in the south when he could have easily strangled them within the first 2 years of the war.
06-16-2005, 11:14 PM
Lincoln wasn't all that keen on freeing the slaves. Believe me, Lincoln did not play the role of emancipator willingly, he was forced into the role. Lincoln himself believed that peaceful coexistence between newly freed blacks and whites would be impossible. Lincoln was a good man, and a good president, but as with many things you only really hear the side of the story that people want you to hear.Originally Posted by davisville64
06-17-2005, 01:29 AM
Now that's exactly the point I like to make.but as with many things you only really hear the side of the story that people want you to hear.
Are you sure this does not apply to the opinions YOU are expressing? They would seem to be the more popular (mis)conception.The opinions you just expressed can be explained in one word: "brainwashing."
LOL Yes, you will go on to make all of my points for me. FDR put the people to work- for the government, as in a communist state. I'll quote another writer on the subject:Claiming that FDR's policies extended the Depression is beyond ridiculous. He put millions of people to work.
"U.S. Population (1935)...120,000,000
46,000,000 Eligible for Old Age Pension
30,000,000 Children prohibited from working
30,000,000 Government employees
Left to produce U.S. wealth = 2
Just you and me - and I'm all worn out!"
The cold hard truth is that if you compare what FDR did and tried to do to the goals of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto (Yes, I've read it, have you?), they match up so perfectly that it is hard to imagine that a capitalist interest could possibly have been involved in Roosevelt's thinking.
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." - Karl Marx
As you see above, 30,000,000 government workers. FDR shut down the national banking system, with no intention of ever reviving it. He devised unconstitutional government institutions such as the NRA and AAA. When the Supreme Court kept trying to declare his acts unconstitutional, he attempted to pack the court with extra judges who would give him a majority. He did everything possible to prevent the American economy from recovering.
"The Washington administration has waged so ruthless a war on private enterprise that the US...is actually...leading the world back into the trough of depression." - Winston Churchill, 1937
FDR's New Deal failed so miserably that a New New Deal had to be struck. He had broken every campaign promise... to make the country financially solvent, to improve conditions for the working man, to reduce the unemployment and public assistance rate. "Herbert Hoover, 1928 Democrat Presidential Nominee Alfred E. Smith, and the 1924 Democrat Presidential Nominee John Davis all called the New Deal communistic."
Although any Google search on "FDR Communist" will provide thousands of results, here is one page which does a good job compiling a large amount of information on the subject:
Although there is some speculation involved, much of this is easily researchable fact, and even 1/10 of it being true is enough to debunk FDR as at the very best and most sympathetic a confused, second-rate intellectual with outlandish and unrealistic plans and at worst a communist, friend to Stalin and traitor to the United States.
Believing FDR to be a great president is one of those myths that government believes best to keep Americans in the dark about, like how Rosa Parks was instructed to resist sitting in the back of the bus in order to be arrested and thus spark a national outrage, or how the U.S. is notorious for supporting brutal dictators and later turning on them, such as the case of Saddam Hussein, or terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden, both of whom we have secretly supplied arms and aid to in the past. However hard it is to believe that this great country can have such a turbulent and scandalous history, ignoring that past is just what makes recurrence of such injustices possible.
06-20-2005, 07:20 PM
Give me time you guys and I will respond to these accusations and allegations of FDR. Just got a copy of the Warm Springs HBO movie about FDR. Plan to watch that soon. Will do some research on history channel.com and others.
Similar Forum Threads
- By robdog in forum MMAReplies: 134Last Post: 04-14-2008, 01:14 AM
- By Luke530 in forum General ChatReplies: 22Last Post: 08-09-2005, 08:33 PM
- By Dwight Schrute in forum Training ForumReplies: 152Last Post: 08-02-2005, 10:29 AM
- By G.E.SUPERHUMAN in forum General ChatReplies: 47Last Post: 05-18-2004, 12:06 AM
- By Rhinoman in forum General ChatReplies: 14Last Post: 12-24-2002, 03:14 PM