The PH Ban is for real now

Page 3 of 4 First 1234 Last

  1. and we're living in a country where the President was never actually elected
    Are you kidding? If we had it Gore's way we would have only counted the liberal parts of Florida not the whole state and got rid of the absentee military votes. Al gore would have the same stance on steroids as Bush as will Kerry. Bush and Kerry are both member of the skull and bones secret society ( which is some pretty f'd up stuff if you read about it). There really isn't much difference between any of them. Look at half the crap Bush is doing.....the immigration issues, Medicare..... he isn't taking a very conservative stance on many issues besides the military which is debatable. The bottom line is it doesn't matter who is in office......... politicians and the media know that the public perception on steroids and prohormones at this point is negative. Therefore it's a win/ win situation for them. The media gets sensational news coverage and the politicians get there names in the paper.
    Unless they get a huge response from people like us, a good amount of stuff isn't going to be around any more. Why do you think they ban androst.. first? Now they can say well if this stuff is harmful then the new stuff is worse. Their foot is in the door to ban the rest of the products. DHEA will probably be exempt because of the elderly lobby. They can also hang the supplement companies by their own words at this point. I guess years of marketing to high school kids make their IQ's drop. Looking at how they are dealing with this I can't believe how stupid they are.

  2. PH Ban bill #?


    Can I have the pro-hormone ban bill #? (Or however they are classified.) So that I can reference it in my emails?

    Thanks.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by SCORPIO
    Time to stock up and stash it.........fuk it, if it's all just as illegal.....I'm going to the dark side.....who's with me?
    I'm with ya, bro

    EDIT: These motherphukers are getting out of control with this banning ****. I think there are other things that should be on a higher priority than what supps can we ban. I.E. the economy, the job market, getting *******s off of welfare, etc.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by unfknblvbl89
    I'm with ya, bro

    EDIT: These motherphukers are getting out of control with this banning ****. I think there are other things that should be on a higher priority than what supps can we ban. I.E. the economy, the job market, getting *******s off of welfare, etc.
    Hell yeah man, we'll be getting out of the corps soon enough, just stick it out for now.

  5. You mean they were serious about the ban? ****!
    Quote Originally Posted by SCORPIO
    fuk it, if it's all just as illegal.....I'm going to the dark side.....who's with me?
    I'm already there bro.
    •   
       


  6. 1. Chill out. I never said what IMO would be Gore's position, which is also pure conjecture from you.
    2. The fact of the matter is that he did not win the popular vote, and nothing will change that. I could bring up many references with hard facts as to why this is true. If you wish to engage in that, this is not the place. It was a simple jab, nothing more.....so no need to overreact


    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    Are you kidding? If we had it Gore's way we would have only counted the liberal parts of Florida not the whole state and got rid of the absentee military votes. Al gore would have the same stance on steroids as Bush as will Kerry. Bush and Kerry are both member of the skull and bones secret society ( which is some pretty f'd up stuff if you read about it). There really isn't much difference between any of them. Look at half the crap Bush is doing.....the immigration issues, Medicare..... he isn't taking a very conservative stance on many issues besides the military which is debatable. The bottom line is it doesn't matter who is in office......... politicians and the media know that the public perception on steroids and prohormones at this point is negative. Therefore it's a win/ win situation for them. The media gets sensational news coverage and the politicians get there names in the paper.
    Unless they get a huge response from people like us, a good amount of stuff isn't going to be around any more. Why do you think they ban androst.. first? Now they can say well if this stuff is harmful then the new stuff is worse. Their foot is in the door to ban the rest of the products. DHEA will probably be exempt because of the elderly lobby. They can also hang the supplement companies by their own words at this point. I guess years of marketing to high school kids make their IQ's drop. Looking at how they are dealing with this I can't believe how stupid they are.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Beelzebub
    Hell yeah man, we'll be getting out of the corps soon enough, just stick it out for now.
    Sounds good, I can't ****ing wait!

  8. I am hearing rumors that we have about a month before the this passes the next level. stock up now.

  9. the reason they are putting so much emphasis on this ban, is that the economy is ****ed, they are in a war they cant win, they ****ed up many many times, and this is the best way to distract joe public..
    get them on the banning bandwagon and they will forget all about how the pres ****ed up at every turn... ****ers

  10. problem is this another war they can't win.. it is like the drug war.. haven't ever made a dent in the problem... Prohibition another losing war on a drug... outlaw it and the Kennedy get rich off of running rum..

  11. 2. The fact of the matter is that he did not win the popular vote, and nothing will change that. I could bring up many references with hard facts as to why this is true. If you wish to engage in that, this is not the place. It was a simple jab, nothing more.....so no need to overreact
    Gore won the popular vote but that means nothing because of the electoral college. The united states is a constitutional republic not a democracy. Any way wrong thread for that. I wasn't over reacting and I hope I didn't come across that way.
    A few people seem to think that changing presidents will make a difference in the prohormone situation which it won't. Some people might think this because liberals are generally don't support heavy punishments for drug users and are also talking about legalizing some of them such as pot. For some reason many of them don't put steroids in the same class as recreational drugs. The bill was in committee before Bush made his state of the union address and has bipartisan support.

  12. There are signs of hope. The FDA has said that if the ban on ephedra holds up against likely legal challenges, it plans to go after other harmful supplements. Two bills, introduced by Senator Richard Durbin and Representative Susan Davis, would strengthen the FDA's authority under DSHEA
    If the supplement companies were smart they would hit them pretty hard on legal challenges they on ephedrine. Even if they loose they are sending the message that they will put up a fight. The only company I heard of fighting the ban was stacker. Instead they just roll over and take it telling the government that they are weak. Some of them have stopped making prohormones before a ban has even taken place. How long before you need a prescription for vitamin C like certain countries in Europe.

  13. vanillagorilla, it is not just liberals who support the legalization (and/or decrim) of pot. you only mention liberals.

    this is one of the most annoying myths.

    there are some dems (liberal or not) who have been among the most ardent drug warriors vis a vis pot. there are also many repubs (conservative or no) who have been among the strongest proponents of legalization/decrim.

    let's not forget that national review, the conservative flagship magazine has been for decrim WAY before it was trendy in the nation et al.

    let's also not forget that clinton was responsible for some of the most potent (on a %age basis) monetary expenditures in the drug war.

  14. What I meant was why some people on this list think that changing the pres. will have any impact on the prohormone legislation. I should have added have the perception to that sentence. It was also bubba drug czar who got the ball rolling on andro. He held a press con. about it a few years ago.

  15. .......look at the left coast. CA is one of the most lib. states in the country but 4-ad is no longer available there.

  16. I'm quite well aware of the electoral college, but thanks for reminding me

    Again, it was a simple jab, nothing more. Maybe what you should have taken from it is that I think the electoral college idea is outdated and ridiculous, especially considering the ability of citizens to be informed now. I also never said a damn thing about changing the president and how this would affect prohormones. I do believe things would be in a different order on the domestic priority list, however (read as: I think we could have been bought more time if not for the mad dash to seem as though this administration is doing a ****ing thing domestically).

    Quote Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
    Gore won the popular vote but that means nothing because of the electoral college. The united states is a constitutional republic not a democracy. Any way wrong thread for that. I wasn't over reacting and I hope I didn't come across that way.
    A few people seem to think that changing presidents will make a difference in the prohormone situation which it won't. Some people might think this because liberals are generally don't support heavy punishments for drug users and are also talking about legalizing some of them such as pot. For some reason many of them don't put steroids in the same class as recreational drugs. The bill was in committee before Bush made his state of the union address and has bipartisan support.

  17. I also never said a damn thing about changing the president and how this would affect prohormones.
    I didn't say you did but other people in this thread have.
    [QUOTE]I think we could have been bought more time if not for the mad dash
    As I posted before Clintons drug czar who's name escapes me held a press conference saying they are looking into if prohormoes can be classified as steroids.So the ball was rolling a few years before bush was in office. With the gov. trying to link andro with the baseball scandal I doubt things would be any different or that we would have more time. Had the baseball scandal came out then the same thing would have happened four or five years ago. This would have been especially true if they changed the name of them to pro steroids back then as well. Why is it just a baseball scandal didn't half the NFL test positive for THG? I know 4 or 5 raiders tested positive for it.
    Maybe what you should have taken from it is that I think the electoral college idea is outdated and ridiculous
    I did. I used to agree with you on the e.c. I have changed my opinion about it but wrong thread.
    Maybe what you should have taken from it is that I think the electoral college idea is outdated and ridiculous, especially considering the ability of citizens to be informed now.[QUOTE] You mean like how the average citizens are informed on steroids, supplements, and exercise?

  18. You mean like how the average citizens are informed on steroids, supplements, and exercise?
    No, but they have the ability to easily be informed. In todays world the knowledge is right at their fingertips for instant gratification, whether or not they choose to soak it in is....well a personal choice, but they should not be treated as thought they are incapable of making this decision based on lack of knowledge.

  19. the electoral college is a good idea, imo.

    ironically i had a discussion about it a couple of weeks prior to the bush/gore election.

    there are a # of reasons, but let's deal with the fact that we are, and have been - a republic - not a direct democracy.

    the electoral college is a good thing. i like small states, i like state autonomy, and i like the way the EC forces candidates to play to states as well as individual voters.

  20. please do

  21. Quote Originally Posted by jjjd
    the electoral college is a good idea, imo.

    ironically i had a discussion about it a couple of weeks prior to the bush/gore election.

    there are a # of reasons, but let's deal with the fact that we are, and have been - a republic - not a direct democracy.

    the electoral college is a good thing. i like small states, i like state autonomy, and i like the way the EC forces candidates to play to states as well as individual voters.
    Exactly, without the electoral college the presidency could probably be decided by New York and California alone. Don't like the drug war? Don't like the gov encroaching on your personal freedoms? Vote Libritarian.

  22. No, but they have the ability to easily be informed. In todays world the knowledge is right at their fingertips for instant gratification, whether or not they choose to soak it in is....well a personal choice, but they should not be treated as thought they are incapable of making this decision based on lack of knowledge.
    Let me put it another way......... Do you think that the mainstream media accurately reports on issues such as steroids, diet, supplements, and exercise?
    Exactly, without the electoral college the presidency could probably be decided by New York and California alone.
    Exactly the point I was going to make. If CA, MA, VT, NH accounted for a huge population and vote one way and the rest of the states vote another , then 4 or 5 states get to decide who is president.
    Vote Libritarian
    I agree with some of what they stand for but some of the things they want to do I don't think would be a very good ideas like having an open boarder.

  23. A change in presidential leadership may not change much, but it would at least possibly send a message that if you start removing our freedoms, your out, and we'll give the next guy a try.

    A change in congressional leadership also would help send the same message.

    I'm just hoping I can get Canada to annex Texas

  24. Quote Originally Posted by -2z-

    I'm just hoping I can get Canada to annex Texas
    So you're saying you prefer socialism?

  25. Quote Originally Posted by jweave23
    No, but they have the ability to easily be informed. In todays world the knowledge is right at their fingertips for instant gratification, whether or not they choose to soak it in is....well a personal choice, but they should not be treated as thought they are incapable of making this decision based on lack of knowledge.
    Actually, I believe it is very difficult to get correct knowledge regarding any anabolics. Way back when I first started looking into steroids, I found zero articles that had anything positive to say about them. Yes, the "good" information may be available, but based on my experience it is not accessible by the average person. They do not know where to look and the steroid community keeps it that way for a reason.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. IronMagLabs 25% off plus other discounts for the Ph Ban
    By heavyiron in forum IronMag Labs
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 12-30-2014, 08:36 PM
  2. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 05-27-2004, 01:58 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-20-2004, 03:13 PM
  4. What does a potential PH ban do for AAS users?
    By YellowJacket in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-16-2003, 05:03 PM
  5. So if the ph-ban goes through.........
    By pjorstad in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-30-2002, 03:58 PM
Log in
Log in