The United States will increase to $1.45 million funding for Steroids

[bigmark1972]

The United States will increase to $1.45 million funding for an organization that combats drug use in athletics WASHINGTON -, the head of National Drug Control Policy said Wednesday.


AFP

Slideshow: Sports Doping Issues


The World Anti-Doping Agency is an international organization that receives $10 million a year from the Olympic Movement and world governments. Through this new formula, the United States will pay 50 percent of the $2.9 paid by the Americas annually and Canada will pay 25 percent with $725,000.



The Americas_ the United States, Canada and the other countries including Central America, South America, and the Caribbean_ are responsible for $2.9 million, or 29 percent of the funding.

"Since President Bush (news - web sites)'s State of the Union challenge to remove steroids from U.S. professional athletics, great strides have been made on this issue," said Director John Walters. "When athletes use steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs, they endanger their health, rob competitive athletics of their legitimacy, and set a harmful example for children."
:saw:

 

[lifted]

So let me get this straight, we, the taxpayers, will be funding a program that will help in the fight against drug use in the olympics....the same olympics that the United States athletes aren't allowed to wave their (our) flags if we win due to the international public thinking we're showing off....

Jesus almighty....Kerry is looking better every single day..

 

[alke]

...the more educated I get on this, the more frustrated I am at the direction this is going and how little impact my opinion seems to make.


letter to your congeressman, what a crock.


I actuaìly favor bush's policy on aggressively tackling the terrorism isue, but what is his deal with bringing steriods into the political limelight?

 

[bigmark1972]

I actually favor bush's policy on aggressively tackling the terrorism isue, but what is his deal with bringing steriods into the political limelight?

You can thank Mark Mcguire and the media hype for that, I like bush but this anti steroid thing pisses me off. WTF like there anre not other important things to worry about (much less pay for). Like they are ever going to stop it anyways gimme a fvcking break where will it end? These guys are already taking the next designer drug, this will stop nothing, morons.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

So let me get this straight, we, the taxpayers, will be funding a program that will help in the fight against drug use in the olympics....the same olympics that the United States athletes aren't allowed to wave their (our) flags if we win due to the international public thinking we're showing off....

Jesus almighty....Kerry is looking better every single day..

It's not really a Kerry thing. Kerry hasn't taken a stand on steriods. Kerry hasn't taken a stand on anything actually

But honestly, I think moderates are slowly coming around to side with conservatives. It's one thing or another - people are seeing the reality despite the media bias. And its different than what I thought just two weeks ago.

The far left bashing Reagan while the nation mourns.
The far left bashing Pat Tillman.
George Soros comparing Bush to Hitler.
Ted Kennedy comparing Bush to Sadaam.
The economy is looking very good - this isnt the "great depression".
Kerry's oil solution: Don't drill here. Don't buy from the middle east.
French president refusing to attend Reagan's funeral.

(obviously these aren't the views of the majority of liberals -- but the average moderate will not side with this kind of campaign.)

Give it a couple more months of 'democrat outrage hype' - the public is not buying it anymore...

 

[lifted]

It's not really a Kerry thing. Kerry hasn't taken a stand on steriods. Kerry hasn't taken a stand on anything actually

But honestly, I think moderates are slowly coming around to side with conservatives. It's one thing or another - people are seeing the reality despite the media bias. And its different than what I thought just two weeks ago.

The far left bashing Reagan while the nation mourns.
The far left bashing Pat Tillman.
George Soros comparing Bush to Hitler.
Ted Kennedy comparing Bush to Sadaam.
The economy is looking very good - this isnt the "great depression".
Kerry's oil solution: Don't drill here. Don't buy from the middle east.
French president refusing to attend Reagan's funeral.

(obviously these aren't the views of the majority of liberals -- but the average moderate will not side with this kind of campaign.)

Give it a couple more months of 'democrat outrage hype' - the public is not buying it anymore...

Well, I didn't mean that Kerry would change things....I just meant that not voting for Bush would give me more satisfaction....,cuz I absolutely despise Bush...

 

[CEDeoudes59]

Well, I didn't mean that Kerry would change things....I just meant that not voting for Bush would give me more satisfaction....,cuz I absolutely despise Bush...

haha oh I thought you with were with us

 

[bioman]

Find me a politician willing to stand up for personal responsibility and personal liberty in this country anymore. Ain't happening.

Moderates, conservatives and liberals all need to create issues and platforms for which to take a stand on and get elected. No one is going to stand up and say "Let's legalize steroids."

There is no voice for us in this government and there probably never will be.

In a month or two we all will be made into criminals. Common criminals no matter if we have fought for this country, paid its taxes or protected its resources..our nation says we are no better than a common felon. So be it, but I will not forgive and I will not forget being railroaded for the political gain of a few democrats and republicans. My vote will be much harder to get from now on.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

ignorance among officials and the general public for sure.

 

[Iron Warrior]

The far left bashing Pat Tillman.

Bro, can you please tell us who bashed Pat Tillman. I'd like to give the idiot who bashed him a freakin peace of my mind. This man made the ultimate sacrafice to protect us. This pisses me off even more cause his mom was one of my teacher's in high school and I know his youngest brother, his family does not deserve to hear crap about Pat Tillman.

BTW, wasting our money on catching some athlete with steroids is a true waste of our resources. I hopoe they realize this won't stop athletes from using steroids.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

The first who comes to mind is Ted Rall. He called Tillman a "coward" and "rambo want-to-be" he even went as far as to bash the Tillman family for raising a "stupid, arrogant" son.
Rall's latest publication is a column attacking Ronald Reagan saying "he hopes he's turning a crispy brown" (in hell obviously).

This is the 2nd time in a month that Rall has attacked persons and their families who have recently died. He is truly a lonely and dickless coward - he's making liberals look terrible. Obviously, not all Democrats share his views - but guilt by association - and hes not helping his guy 'John Kerry' for president.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

Rene Gonzalez, a UMASS Grad School student wrote an article calling Tillman a coward and fraud. He is not a public figure like Rall.

 

[Iron Warrior]

Thanks Deoudes.

 

[bioman]

I'm fairly liberal and have to say that this Rall et al do not represent my feelings nor those of any liberal I know..and I know many. There are talking heads like this on both sides who are essentially politico shock jocks. They should be ignored.

Anne Coulter anyone?

People like Rall and Coulter mix hatred into their political views. This is not only unproductive but dangerous for our nation.

 

[CEDeoudes59]

yep I agree.
when Rall follows up his words of hate with "don't vote for bush"
It's not helping the other side.

It does make me sick that these people aren't slammed by the mainstream media - and always pull the "freedom of speech" card whenever they want to insult someone or someone's family to attempt to advance their own careers.

 

[bioman]

All in all I think the average viewer/listener loses their taste for people like that after a while. If they do continue to listen it's out of morbid curiosity. Rush and Stern fans listen to be entertained, not so much informed or taught. People that take every word of anyone's ranting to heart are mindless cretins anyway.

 

[Sir Foxx]

I'm fairly liberal and have to say that this Rall et al do not represent my feelings nor those of any liberal I know..and I know many. There are talking heads like this on both sides who are essentially politico shock jocks. They should be ignored.

Anne Coulter anyone?

People like Rall and Coulter mix hatred into their political views. This is not only unproductive but dangerous for our nation.

But Coulter is kind of hot so she gets a pass

 

[CEDeoudes59]

haha,
but the Fox News Girls are the best in my opinion.
Laurie Dhue, Kiran Chetry, Dagen McDowell, etc. etc. - they are just news girls though, don't share opinions

 

[VanillaGorilla]

I guess compared to how much the government does spend on other things it's not that much money but it's still pointless. A large percentage of Athletes at the Olympics are taking performance enhancing drugs. For the most part they are always one step ahead of the testing and probably always will be.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Kerry hasn't taken a stand on anything actually

But honestly, I think moderates are slowly coming around to side with conservatives. It's one thing or another - people are seeing the reality despite the media bias. And its different than what I thought just two weeks ago.

The far left bashing Reagan while the nation mourns.
The far left bashing Pat Tillman.
George Soros comparing Bush to Hitler.
Ted Kennedy comparing Bush to Sadaam.
The economy is looking very good - this isnt the "great depression".
Kerry's oil solution: Don't drill here. Don't buy from the middle east.
French president refusing to attend Reagan's funeral.

Do you think the reaction would be the same if that were conservatives doing that to liberals?lol Out of all of those the Pat Tillman was the one that really angered me. You can expect that from the French, Ted, and the rest of the far left but with Tillman really crossed the line.

ignorance among officials and the general public for sure.

It amazes me how little people know. People suport Kerry but have no idea what he stands for on issues.(which is hard because he can't answer a simple question). They think he stands for things that he doesn't. They have no idea about drugs and sports and many other issues either.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

You can thank Mark Mcguire and the media hype for that, I like bush but this anti steroid thing pisses me off. WTF like there anre not other important things to worry about (much less pay for). Like they are ever going to stop it anyways gimme a fvcking break where will it end? These guys are already taking the next designer drug, this will stop nothing, morons.

The things that's annoying is Mcguire was supposedly taking androstendione which didn't work. It's more likely he was taking steroids. Athletes will always be one step ahead of the testing.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

As I said a few times on this board that they aren't going to stop with prohormones. I don't know if you guys have read some other recent posts about this ........
http://www.anabolicminds.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16012

http://ahha.org/codex.htm

 

[shercolt]

Vitamin D is a prosteroid that is metabolized in the liver into the active form of vitamin D that is necessary for body growth and development. Will this be banned ? It should be if the new law is passed. Also, plants containing natural estrogen that are used in the over-the-counter treatment of menopause should also be banned because they do contain a steroid. Natural estrogen, like estrogen replacement therapy, has a body enhancing effect (i.e., anti-aging). Will these be banned ? They should be.

As I said a few times on this board that they aren't going to stop with prohormones. I don't know if you guys have read some other recent posts about this ........
http://www.anabolicminds.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16012

http://ahha.org/codex.htm

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Also, plants containing natural estrogen that are used in the over-the-counter treatment of menopause should also be banned because they do contain a steroid. Natural estrogen, like estrogen replacement therapy, has a body enhancing effect (i.e., anti-aging). Will these be banned ?

No they won't be

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Anne Coulter anyone?

What has Anne Coulter said that is remotely close to the Ted Ralls or Rene Gonzalez said?

 

[CEDeoudes59]

It amazes me how little people know. People suport Kerry but have no idea what he stands for on issues.(which is hard because he can't answer a simple question). They think he stands for things that he doesn't. They have no idea about drugs and sports and many other issues either.

Very true.
Kerry tries to stand for both sides. A true politican. And you can't have it both ways - you can lie about it and distort what you stand for so long. Americans won't buy it come election time.

He better get a platform together and a vice presidential canidate.

What sickens me the most is John Kerry accusing George Bush of misleading America about Iraq.

George W. Bush said Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.
John Kerry said Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Bill Clinton said Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.
France said Iraq had Weapons of MAss Destruction.

I believe they still do.
but regardless the only one held accountable for their statements is president. Democrats are granted a free pass.

 

[houseman]

It's not really a Kerry thing. Kerry hasn't taken a stand on steriods. Kerry hasn't taken a stand on anything actually

So true. So true.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

He better get a platform together and a vice presidential canidate.

What sickens me the most is John Kerry accusing George Bush of misleading America about Iraq.

George W. Bush said Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.
John Kerry said Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Bill Clinton said Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.
France said Iraq had Weapons of MAss Destruction.


but regardless the only one held accountable for their statements is president. Democrats are granted a free pass.

That's a good point. It's pretty ironic that someone who can't even answer if he owns an SUV or not criticizes Bush for misleading people. Unfortunately the dems will always get a pass.

I believe they still do.

I believe that they are some where but have probably made their way out of Iraq.

 

[shercolt]

U.S. funding for steroids

Kerry is not the ideal candidate. He has put his foot in his mouth many a time. His selection for VP will be important, very important. The Dems don't always get a pass. Just listen to Hanity, O'Reilly. and Coulter to name a few. Coulter has stated in her last book and on TV that " all democrats are treasonists, " "Kerry is a gigolo." to name a few. They all say that they "are sick about hearing about the Clintons," yet they bring up both Bill and Hillary constantly. This bickering will never end.

Iraq obviously had WMDs at some point. Look what happened to the Kurds. I do not believe that the remaining weapons were all distroyed. If they are in Syria, it would not surprise me if the Bush administration gave Syria an ultimatum: Turn them over or we come in. Thus, we could add Syria to our list of new real estate.

My primary concern in this war is not with Iraq. It is with Bin Laudin vs Saudi Arabia.

That's a good point. It's pretty ironic that someone who can't even answer if he owns an SUV or not criticizes Bush for misleading people. Unfortunately the dems will always get a pass.

I believe that they are some where but have probably made their way out of Iraq.

 

[bioman]

We can argue over who is the best candidate till the cows come home. The bottom line is that when it comes to PH use we have next to no voice with either party. Bush isn't going to see the light any quicker than Kerry. Both stand to benefit by appearing "Tough on steroid abuse" and "Cleaning up sports" quack quack quack.

With the exception of Senator Hatch, so called conservatives are not standing up for personal freedoms (ie our right to use PH) or the concept of personal responsibility (our right to do with our bodies what we wish) any more than so called liberals.

If you all continue to slant your arguments to try to prove which party is better we'll never get anywhere.

 

[ex_banana-eater]

We can argue over who is the best candidate till the cows come home. The bottom line is that when it comes to PH use we have next to no voice with either party. Bush isn't going to see the light any quicker than Kerry. Both stand to benefit by appearing "Tough on steroid abuse" and "Cleaning up sports" quack quack quack.

With the exception of Senator Hatch, so called conservatives are not standing up for personal freedoms (ie our right to use PH) or the concept of personal responsibility (our right to do with our bodies what we wish) any more than so called liberals.

If you all continue to slant your arguments to try to prove which party is better we'll never get anywhere.

Libertarian

 

[VanillaGorilla]

The Dems don't always get a pass. Just listen to Hanity, O'Reilly. and Coulter to name a few. Coulter has stated in her last book and on TV that " all democrats are treasonists, " "Kerry is a gigolo." to name a few. They all say that they "are sick about hearing about the Clintons," yet they bring up both Bill and Hillary constantly.

The dems will always get a pass for the regular news outlets. The conservatives have talk radio, Fox news, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington times. The left has anything coming out of Hollywood, ABC, CBC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC with the exception of Scarborough county, The New York times (which most of the media follow), the Boston Globe, the LA Times, it's better to put it like this every paper other than the Wall Street journal and the Washington Times. Also they keep covering the Clintons because they won't go a way i.e Bills book and media blitz book tour. Also non of the people you mentioned said anything remotely close to some of the Pat Tillman comments.

Iraq obviously had WMDs at some point. Look what happened to the Kurds. I do not believe that the remaining weapons were all distroyed. If they are in Syria, it would not surprise me if the Bush administration gave Syria an ultimatum: Turn them over or we come in. Thus, we could add Syria to our list of new real estate.

We don't have the man power to go in and President Bush don't have as much political capital as he did to take the risk in a election year to go in to Syria.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We can argue over who is the best candidate till the cows come home. The bottom line is that when it comes to PH use we have next to no voice with either party. Bush isn't going to see the light any quicker than Kerry. Both stand to benefit by appearing "Tough on steroid abuse" and "Cleaning up sports" quack quack quack.

With the exception of Senator Hatch, so called conservatives are not standing up for personal freedoms (ie our right to use PH) or the concept of personal responsibility (our right to do with our bodies what we wish) any more than so called liberals.

If you all continue to slant your arguments to try to prove which party is better we'll never get anywhere.

I have said before that this is a Bipartisan Bill. However, some people on the board continually make comments blaming the ban on Bush. This is simply not fair and shows some pretty shallow thinking. He didn't write the Bill or introduce it into the house. Both sides did and both sides view it as a win/ win situation for them. The general population has no idea about prohormones and has a negative opinion on them. So both sides can get their picture in the paper by supporting the bill without taking any real damage. If Kerry or Gore was in office the same thing would be happening. This didn't start at the executive level of government. It started in the legislative branch. So you can't blame Bush.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Libertarian

I would suport them if they didn't favor having an open boarder.

 

[ex_banana-eater]

I would suport them if they didn't favor having an open boarder.

Hey, who would cut your lawn if it weren't for immigrants?

But besides this, many studies have been done on immigration to show that they are net contributors to society. They either make jobs through investment in business, or take the worst jobs that Americans don't want. If Libertarians had power, you wouldn't have to worry about immigrants going on welfare, taking your paycheque, because there wouldn't be anything of the sort.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

But besides this, many studies have been done on immigration to show that they are net contributors to society. They either make jobs through investment in business, or take the worst jobs that Americans don't want. If Libertarians had power, you wouldn't have to worry about immigrants going on welfare, taking your paycheque, because there wouldn't be anything of the sort.

Having an open boarder would be a huge mistake. The main problem would be terrorism. I'll repost what I have allready said from another thread. There are 10,000 illegal aliens coming over the boarder every day. That is 3, 650,000 a year. After what happened on 9-11 are you trying to tell me that almost 4 million illegal aliens aren't a security threat? Just say that 5 % are coming from the middle east and are terrorist or have terrorist ties. That's 182,500 terrorist a year!!!!!!! Hell even 2.5 % would be 90000. There were only 12 terrorists but probably more on 9-11. Image what kind of chaos 100,000 could do. Yet President Bush wants to legalize people who break the law and come over illegally. It makes the people who follow the rules look like idiots. It's going to make us look like idiots for not shutting down the boarder and completely over hauling the INS when something happens that's worse than 9-11. The INS renewed the terrorists visas after 9-11 happened!!!!!
The notion that we need illegal immigrants here is completely a false one. When you are flooded with Illegal aliens it drives down the wages of everyone else because they are willing to do the work for much less. What will happen is no one will want to do certain jobs at the prices that they were paying the illegals, so they will have to raise the wages to the point where people are willing to do it. It is also completely false that it will cost our government billions if we get rid of them. The first thing they do when they get here is to go on welfare (there was a story about this in Newsweek where they were all going to a certain town because the welfare system in the town was so good. Long story short, the town is going bankrupt), we have to pay for their health care when they go to the emergence room, we have to pay for their children to go to school, we have to pay when they go to prison and when they go through the legal system. Many times they send a good chunk of the money they make (if they are working) back to the countries they are from so the local economies don't benefit from them either. The fact is illegal aliens cost us money. They also take a toll on the educational system. If the children of illegal aliens flood the school system it costs the town money as well. In the town in the Newsweek article the education system in the town was also in shambles because they couldn't handle all the kids coming in. It also forces the school to hire ESL teachers. Another aspect to this is that for some reason they don't feel the need to learn English. This in turn dumbs down and slows down the pace of the classes they are in. So they kids who can speak English education suffers because of this.

 

[bioman]

NOT a libertarian. Merely pointing out that even suggesting that either party is more of a freind to our cause at this point in time is totally foolish. Dems and Reps are sharpening their knives at the prospect of getting rid of PH to save babies and look heroic before election time.

Libertarian my ass! lol

 

[bigmark1972]

you wouldn't have to worry about immigrants going on welfare, taking your paycheque, because there wouldn't be anything of the sort.

I wish this could happen, but it never will things are going to other way I am afraid. I also am against open borders but otherwise I would say I am cpnservative/Libertarian I believe in a minimalist government for sure.

 

[ex_banana-eater]

Having an open boarder would be a huge mistake. The main problem would be terrorism. I'll repost what I have allready said from another thread. There are 10,000 illegal aliens coming over the boarder every day. That is 3, 650,000 a year. After what happened on 9-11 are you trying to tell me that almost 4 million illegal aliens aren't a security threat? Just say that 5 % are coming from the middle east and are terrorist or have terrorist ties. That's 182,500 terrorist a year!!!!!!! Hell even 2.5 % would be 90000. There were only 12 terrorists but probably more on 9-11. Image what kind of chaos 100,000 could do. Yet President Bush wants to legalize people who break the law and come over illegally. It makes the people who follow the rules look like idiots. It's going to make us look like idiots for not shutting down the boarder and completely over hauling the INS when something happens that's worse than 9-11. The INS renewed the terrorists visas after 9-11 happened!!!!!
The notion that we need illegal immigrants here is completely a false one. When you are flooded with Illegal aliens it drives down the wages of everyone else because they are willing to do the work for much less. What will happen is no one will want to do certain jobs at the prices that they were paying the illegals, so they will have to raise the wages to the point where people are willing to do it. It is also completely false that it will cost our government billions if we get rid of them. The first thing they do when they get here is to go on welfare (there was a story about this in Newsweek where they were all going to a certain town because the welfare system in the town was so good. Long story short, the town is going bankrupt), we have to pay for their health care when they go to the emergence room, we have to pay for their children to go to school, we have to pay when they go to prison and when they go through the legal system. Many times they send a good chunk of the money they make (if they are working) back to the countries they are from so the local economies don't benefit from them either. The fact is illegal aliens cost us money. They also take a toll on the educational system. If the children of illegal aliens flood the school system it costs the town money as well. In the town in the Newsweek article the education system in the town was also in shambles because they couldn't handle all the kids coming in. It also forces the school to hire ESL teachers. Another aspect to this is that for some reason they don't feel the need to learn English. This in turn dumbs down and slows down the pace of the classes they are in. So they kids who can speak English education suffers because of this.

Best the jobs stay in your own country instead of being imported to India with no American benefit at all.

And like I said, open immigration would not cost you money since there would be no welfare state under Libertarian government, each would be responsible for himself.

Terrorists can easily get in whether immigration is made easy or not. Just because there is open immigration dosn't mean strict security measures can't be taken to reduce risk of terrorism.

Since when are 5% of immigrants terrorists? 0% are. The 9/11 bombings were done by people do were not officially landed immigrants to the US, people who were really just multinationals. And the OKC bombings were done by McVeigh. The snipings were done by those two kids born in the US.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Best the jobs stay in your own country instead of being imported to India with no American benefit at all.

That's true . I am against NAFTA, GATT and the WTO that causes an out sourcing of jobs. In the 90's it was all manufacturing jobs. People that lost their jobs at a manufacturing plant had to get two jobs working at Pizza Hut and Taco bell. So according to the politicians that's two jobs that were created. Now we are seeing high tech jobs being shipped over to places such as India. So eventually we are going to see less and less decent jobs and more and more Wal-Mart clerks. This however has nothing to do with our current immigration policy.

And like I said, open immigration would not cost you money since there would be no welfare state under Libertarian government, each would be responsible for himself.

That's great but it's never going to happen. What we are seeing is government social programs(that aren't called welfare anymore but entitlement programs. Think about the implications of that word) and government expanding. Even if there was a libertarian state with out welfare. We would still be forced to pay for their medical expenses, criminals going through the legal system and getting locked up, and their children going to school. The issue of a large influx of immigrants artificially driving down wages would also still be a problem as well.

Terrorists can easily get in whether immigration is made easy or not. Just because there is open immigration doesn't mean strict security measures can't be taken to reduce risk of terrorism.

We can shut down the border and the notion that we can't is simple not true. There are many solutions to do this such as using the national guard to patrol the boarder and giving local law inforcement the power to detain and deport illegal aliens. The point is a open boarder is not a good idea and it will allow terrorist easy access to this country.

Since when are 5% of immigrants terrorists? 0% are. The 9/11 bombings were done by people do were not officially landed immigrants to the US, people who were really just multinationals. And the OKC bombings were done by McVeigh. The snipers were done by those two kids born in the US.

It was a hypothetical point. If 10,000 people a day cross the boarder to get into this country just saying 5 percent are terrorist would be 500 terrorist a day, 2.5 % would be 250 a day, around 1 % would be 175 a day. Their were only 19 but probably a hand full more on September 11. Nineteen men killed 3,000. Imagine what an orchestrated attack would be like with just say 100 men could do? You pretty much proved my point. With OKC bombing their was more to it and more people involved than what most people know. The two snipers is a good example. Imagine what 25 Al Quada snipers could do in ten states? How about 50? They could easily slip 50 men over the border. My prediction is the next terrorist attacks will be done by terrorist who got into this country via Mexico. When that happens I am going to be furious because it could have easily been prevented.

 

[acecombact1]

i ahte paying taxes for this country

 

[VanillaGorilla]

ahte paying taxes for this country

People forget what started the revolutionary war in this country.