©ALL CONTENT OF THIS WEBSITE IS COPYRIGHTED AND CANNOT BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE ADMINISTRATORS CONSENT 2002-2024
.gif "IP Gear")
pro steroid presidency candidate
- Thread starter G.E.R.M
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2002
- Messages
- 7,223
He does have his shit together on OUR issue!
THE WAR ON DRUGS
Now, even George Bush has weighed in against the use of performance enhancement drugs in his recent State of the Union Address. He said little but what he said will have a terrible impact simply because he is the President.
Preposterously – that is, it is preposterous if you wrongly suppose that Democrats are at least slightly more liberal than Republicans are – politicians of the Democratic Party are introducing a new wave of hysteria concerning drugs. Senator Dorgan (D – North Dakota) has proposed a bill calling for randomized tests on a regular basis for all professional athletes. Perata (D – California State Senate) has done the same. Biden (D – Delaware) goes further and wants to remove from
the shelves of A&P, GNC, and grocers everywhere all so-called
prohormones and other natural substances (even by the FDA’s lights) that might slightly enhance an athlete’s performance.
What is it all about? If you have been reading the newspapers during the last fifteen years – ever since Ben Johnson had his Olympic gold medal taken away for the use of Nandrolone (a.k.a. Deca Durabolin) – you know there is ideological warfare being waged against steroids. Officially, the war was won in 1989 when Congress arbitrarily declared steroids to be Schedule III drugs, meaning they could not be handled even by physicians except for medical necessity. Nevertheless, the use of these drugs has increased. AND RIGHTLY SO.
Look here is a brief resume of the facts.
1. Steroids are not particularly dangerous. They are certainly less dangerous than aspirin, ibuprofen, and the hundreds of drugs physicians mindlessly prescribe every day. They are incomparably less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol – and there is no movement to classify these as Schedule III drugs.
2. Hundreds of thousands of young men having no aspirations to being famous athletes use them only because they like the bodies they hope steroids will give them. Hence they cannot possibly be regarded as “cheaters”. Theirs is a purely cosmetic purpose so far beneath the risk level of injecting botulism into the skin to end wrinkles and so far beneath the risk level of liposuction that comparisons are laughable. No one proposes arresting surgeons for performing liposuction.
3. Steroids are neither habituating nor addictive. The distinction
between the two is made, as far as I know, in only one published
article. (See Sidney Gendin’s “Ban Athletes Who Don’t use Steroids” a 70-page monograph published by Meso-rx.com.)
4. Substances are banned for one reason only – they fail to satisfy the taste of guardians of moral virtue. Even marijuana is banned, a substance that is unquestionably performance-diminishing. It simply isn’t nice to use it.
Athletes who use steroids and other performance enhancers are not cheaters whether they break the law or not. Steroid users are up against cheaters. There are over one hundred substances on the legal market used by those who refuse to “traffic” in steroids. These substances cost them well over $1000/month. This is more than most steroid users can afford. The ads for these substances say such things as “Looks like Deca, feels like Deca, works like Deca”. Well, then, ban them like Deca.
Technology is good. It cannot and should not be halted. Once upon a time, pole-vaulters were limited to hickory shafts; today they use performance-enhancing unnatural fiberglass poles. Once upon a time, (1928), a runner used starting blocks to begin his race, instead of digging small holes in the ground to gain a footing. He set a world record that was disallowed. Eight years later, digging holes was banned and the use of starting blocks became de rigueur. Once upon a time, baseball gloves were small and the gloves that are used nowadays were illegal because they made catching a ball too easy. Once upon a time,
tennis rackets were made of heavy wood and were tiny. With today’s swift, magical rackets, even Gendin can hit the ball. Once upon a time, vitamin pills were unknown; today every physician swears by these “unnatural” substances.
If elected President I will end the war on steroids. And what of the classic war on heroin, crack and cocaine? This war, too, is
unjustified but enough has been said by thoughtful persons on that matter. If elected, I would work to bring about the decriminalization not only of marijuana use (almost too obvious for words) but of heroin and other Schedule I drugs. Medical science knows there is a better way. I advocate those better ways.
Every announced candidate for presidency is too frightened to do
anything but climb aboard the virtue bandwagon. They are loathe to learn the facts. I have studied the pharmacology of drugs and read literally thousands of medical articles over the past four years. This puts me in the unfortunate position of actually knowing what I am talking about. I hope this will not deter you from supporting my run for the presidency.
THE WAR ON DRUGS
Now, even George Bush has weighed in against the use of performance enhancement drugs in his recent State of the Union Address. He said little but what he said will have a terrible impact simply because he is the President.
Preposterously – that is, it is preposterous if you wrongly suppose that Democrats are at least slightly more liberal than Republicans are – politicians of the Democratic Party are introducing a new wave of hysteria concerning drugs. Senator Dorgan (D – North Dakota) has proposed a bill calling for randomized tests on a regular basis for all professional athletes. Perata (D – California State Senate) has done the same. Biden (D – Delaware) goes further and wants to remove from
the shelves of A&P, GNC, and grocers everywhere all so-called
prohormones and other natural substances (even by the FDA’s lights) that might slightly enhance an athlete’s performance.
What is it all about? If you have been reading the newspapers during the last fifteen years – ever since Ben Johnson had his Olympic gold medal taken away for the use of Nandrolone (a.k.a. Deca Durabolin) – you know there is ideological warfare being waged against steroids. Officially, the war was won in 1989 when Congress arbitrarily declared steroids to be Schedule III drugs, meaning they could not be handled even by physicians except for medical necessity. Nevertheless, the use of these drugs has increased. AND RIGHTLY SO.
Look here is a brief resume of the facts.
1. Steroids are not particularly dangerous. They are certainly less dangerous than aspirin, ibuprofen, and the hundreds of drugs physicians mindlessly prescribe every day. They are incomparably less dangerous than cigarettes and alcohol – and there is no movement to classify these as Schedule III drugs.
2. Hundreds of thousands of young men having no aspirations to being famous athletes use them only because they like the bodies they hope steroids will give them. Hence they cannot possibly be regarded as “cheaters”. Theirs is a purely cosmetic purpose so far beneath the risk level of injecting botulism into the skin to end wrinkles and so far beneath the risk level of liposuction that comparisons are laughable. No one proposes arresting surgeons for performing liposuction.
3. Steroids are neither habituating nor addictive. The distinction
between the two is made, as far as I know, in only one published
article. (See Sidney Gendin’s “Ban Athletes Who Don’t use Steroids” a 70-page monograph published by Meso-rx.com.)
4. Substances are banned for one reason only – they fail to satisfy the taste of guardians of moral virtue. Even marijuana is banned, a substance that is unquestionably performance-diminishing. It simply isn’t nice to use it.
Athletes who use steroids and other performance enhancers are not cheaters whether they break the law or not. Steroid users are up against cheaters. There are over one hundred substances on the legal market used by those who refuse to “traffic” in steroids. These substances cost them well over $1000/month. This is more than most steroid users can afford. The ads for these substances say such things as “Looks like Deca, feels like Deca, works like Deca”. Well, then, ban them like Deca.
Technology is good. It cannot and should not be halted. Once upon a time, pole-vaulters were limited to hickory shafts; today they use performance-enhancing unnatural fiberglass poles. Once upon a time, (1928), a runner used starting blocks to begin his race, instead of digging small holes in the ground to gain a footing. He set a world record that was disallowed. Eight years later, digging holes was banned and the use of starting blocks became de rigueur. Once upon a time, baseball gloves were small and the gloves that are used nowadays were illegal because they made catching a ball too easy. Once upon a time,
tennis rackets were made of heavy wood and were tiny. With today’s swift, magical rackets, even Gendin can hit the ball. Once upon a time, vitamin pills were unknown; today every physician swears by these “unnatural” substances.
If elected President I will end the war on steroids. And what of the classic war on heroin, crack and cocaine? This war, too, is
unjustified but enough has been said by thoughtful persons on that matter. If elected, I would work to bring about the decriminalization not only of marijuana use (almost too obvious for words) but of heroin and other Schedule I drugs. Medical science knows there is a better way. I advocate those better ways.
Every announced candidate for presidency is too frightened to do
anything but climb aboard the virtue bandwagon. They are loathe to learn the facts. I have studied the pharmacology of drugs and read literally thousands of medical articles over the past four years. This puts me in the unfortunate position of actually knowing what I am talking about. I hope this will not deter you from supporting my run for the presidency.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2002
- Messages
- 5,177
Fruitcake?
Bush and whatever idoit (Keary) who will oppose him are fruitcakes!
This guy STARTED lifting at 63 and 7yrs later is benching 340!
Fucking unbelievable! And I also read the page Xcel copied. Are you telling me there is one candidate will a more sensible view?
Im not speaking to anyone in particular, just speaking...
Dont forget Jessee the Body too-if he really was serious during his statement at Wrestlemania XX.
Bush and whatever idoit (Keary) who will oppose him are fruitcakes!
This guy STARTED lifting at 63 and 7yrs later is benching 340!
Fucking unbelievable! And I also read the page Xcel copied. Are you telling me there is one candidate will a more sensible view?
Im not speaking to anyone in particular, just speaking...
Dont forget Jessee the Body too-if he really was serious during his statement at Wrestlemania XX.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2002
- Messages
- 369
amazing
Its amazing the level of ignorance sometimes. Can you imagine this "idiot" getting elected!? Some of you need to look past the Dbol and get a grip on what going on in the "REAL" world. It wont matter if Test is legal if a suitcase nuke goes off in the US or in Europe.
Its amazing the level of ignorance sometimes. Can you imagine this "idiot" getting elected!? Some of you need to look past the Dbol and get a grip on what going on in the "REAL" world. It wont matter if Test is legal if a suitcase nuke goes off in the US or in Europe.
Re: amazing
exactly and thats why greatly reducing the annual expenditure by the gov't trying to fight these harmless drugs would leave billions that every year could be put toward national security. plus generate new tax revenue for the gov't..
Johnny Bravo said:
exactly and thats why greatly reducing the annual expenditure by the gov't trying to fight these harmless drugs would leave billions that every year could be put toward national security. plus generate new tax revenue for the gov't..
MikeS said:
ALL politicians are liars, we know that. I would not put someone in office just because they would legalize juice and can bench 340. That's called short sighted, and you have to look at the big picture. This guy would tax you into the ground.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2003
- Messages
- 1,103
i would rather be taxed than go to jail for wanting to build some muscle.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2002
- Messages
- 8,897
THERE IS NOT ONE PERSON WHO SHOULD BASE HIS OR HER VOTE ON THE STEROID ISSUE.. on the broad sceem of issues it is mute.. there are much bigger issues that america faces.. and by the way, no one candidate (kerry or bush) will support us.. period.. now.. after this election over, we will be put on the back burner as we have been in the past..i was watching cnn (which by the way.. i hate that channel) and they said that the roid issue has not affected turnout at all.. it is at a all time high.. they interviewed people who had purchased season tickets and they stated that it was a non issue.. it is the press that can not leave it alone.. so, what does it mean.. it means that the politicians who are trying to use this as a political tool are out of luck..
BUT ON A MORE SERIOUS NOTE..look at the pros that are in the mags.. i am whole heartedly dissapointed in their personal lives.. out of the top ten pros in the world we have rec drug users, rec drug sellers, wife beaters, ect.. we wonder why we are facing scrutiny...it seems like everyday you hear about a pro who is hooked on nubain, x , coke, doing time, selling rec drugs, beating his wife or girlfriend and barely getting out of jail in time to do a show ect.. and the kicker is that is the top 15 pros.. where do you find that much b.s. in the top 15 pros inany other sport??really quite sad..bodybuilding needs a enema
BUT ON A MORE SERIOUS NOTE..look at the pros that are in the mags.. i am whole heartedly dissapointed in their personal lives.. out of the top ten pros in the world we have rec drug users, rec drug sellers, wife beaters, ect.. we wonder why we are facing scrutiny...it seems like everyday you hear about a pro who is hooked on nubain, x , coke, doing time, selling rec drugs, beating his wife or girlfriend and barely getting out of jail in time to do a show ect.. and the kicker is that is the top 15 pros.. where do you find that much b.s. in the top 15 pros inany other sport??really quite sad..bodybuilding needs a enema
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2002
- Messages
- 7,223
You guys get your panties in a bunch too easily
Nobody said we should all go out and vote for this guy!
I just liked what he said on the "war on steroids" and that's the message the public needs to hear!
Of course there are much more global issues a president must deal with - this is just a refreshing approach from ANY politician.
xcel
Nobody said we should all go out and vote for this guy!
I just liked what he said on the "war on steroids" and that's the message the public needs to hear!
Of course there are much more global issues a president must deal with - this is just a refreshing approach from ANY politician.
xcel
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,080
I'm with xcel on this one, I would not vote for this guy, but if he can use the presidential election as a platform to get opposing views of AAS use out in the public, then I'm all for it. I could see a couple dipshits at my gym voting for him, but no one with a good head on their shoulders would punch their ballot for him. Ralph Nader used the election as a platform for his ideas on the environment (I believe), no one took him seriously as a candidate, but you have a captive audience and the media at your beck and call.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2002
- Messages
- 5,177
Yeah-I didnt even look at the guys platform. It was just nice to see someone making sense on an issue that important to us/me, compared to all the assholes both Dem and Rep that are speaking from total ignorance on this issue.
Plus his lift was pretty impressive for an old guy, you all gotta admit!
Plus his lift was pretty impressive for an old guy, you all gotta admit!
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2002
- Messages
- 348
Yeah, a fruitcake??
what below is NOT rational
whereas i can list endlessless the irrationality and its ever growing prominence in our 'elected' officials and their actions--and a governemtn without a clear logical consistent basis free of hypocrisy has no anchor and no way to be taken serioously
anyway --besides that it is an interesting read, especially for some of the youger members here i think
from his website:
LIBERALISM
I don't recall when it all began. When did "liberalism" become, in
the opinion of at least some people, a term of opprobrium? I I think
it must have happened sometime after I graduated from college (1955)
because I never knew anyone when I was in high school or college who
didn't think of himself as liberal, regardless of his politics. We
knew that not to be liberal was to be illiberal, and who, in his right
mind, would boast of that?
In the late 50s socially controversial programs became more prominent.
Abortion, welfare, affirmative action were hot topics as they had
never been in the 40s and most of the 50s. (In the 50s, most abortions
were obtained, not by unwed teenagers but by married women over the age
of 35 who, having two or three children, unintentionally got pregnant.)
Although it is not clear that any conceptual links exist between being
in favor of the right to abort and favoring affirmative action, these
programs tended to be supported by the same people. They made common
cause on these and a bewildering wide batch of other issues. For
whatever obscure reason, they became associated, too, with the
"Lefties" - socialists and communist sympathizers. It is hard to see
why a communist should be more inclined, say, to gun control than a
capitalist but let us charitably turn our heads away from the painful
sight of this grouping. When the Vietnam War happened, "peaceniks"
were everywhere - despicably unclean, unshaven youth (in Nixon's eyes)
- who, once and for all, consolidated the Left (once a purely political
philosophy) with the outcries for social upheaval of so-called
"Liberals". In other words, we took a GIANT step from "liberal" to
"Liberal". Now, then, Liberals were fair game. We can easily
imagine that often in the privacy of the Oval Room, (if we ignore the
mystifying taping) Nixon proclaiming loudly to all nearby (except
Kissinger), "Fucking Jewish Liberals!"
By Reagan's time, "Liberal" was certifiably an insult. Today's
Democratic candidates are usually at pains to disavow any strong
Liberal sentiments. They like to think of themselves as centrists,
moderates or just to the left of center and prefer not to bring the
guardians of decency down on their heads. They like terms like
"N-word" in lieu of "nigger" and eschew anything that vaguely has a
radical odor. They proclaim loudly against pornography, prostitution
and the use of drugs. They wrongly and dumbly buy into the absurdity
that these are radical leftist ideals. Even George McGovern's
liberalism consisted of nothing much more than devotion to ending a
war.
PHILOSOPHICAL LIBERALISM
Philosophical liberals preach indidualism and autonomy. For example,
Robert P. Wolff has written that it is ALWAYS wrong to obey any law,
however sensible it is. To obey to to accept subjugation, to do as
one is told. This doesn't mean we should not conform our conduct to
the requirements of law. For, as I said, some laws are sensible and
wise. One adopts them from one's own sense of rightness. One never
says, "Well, it's the law so we have got to obey it." Yet this idea
is widely accepted. One who accepts this idea that "law is law" is
not a Liberal. Laws may be civilly disobeyed if they are wrong and we
don't have to wait for them to be changed. It is by challenge that
they get changed. That was Martin Luther King's credo and he was
absolutely right. (And it is by challenging the idea that we must
remove Bush whatever Democratic incompetent we need to replace him that
we are assured that a good person will never be President.)
Philosophical liberals are quick to seek remedies for social
injustices and they believe that fundamental human rights have priority
over the good of the community. Thus they hold that the recent
infringement upon civil liberties by the Ashcroft/Ridge cabal that are
undertaken in the name of pressing security concerns are misguided not
only because they are unnecessary but simply because they are morally
wrong, and morality cannot be sacrificed for speculative social
causes.
In contrast, philosophical conservatives believe that people are not
entities-in-themselves but are defined by their membership in a group.
America is a thing over and above the individuals who are its citizens
and it deserves our unconditional love. "Right or wrong but my
country." Individuals have no true identity except as they are
Jewishor Christian, patriots or spies, black or white. Conservatives
put great store on the accumulated wisdom of experience and think that
elitists are trying to impose their radical vision on the "average man"
- "the man on the 5th Avenue bus". Morality can change, they
confess, but it must change slowly. Laws must reflect custom and not
lead us away from what we are most familiar with. Laws can shift but
this must come after they have gained the approval of the majority and
must not hit us over the head. Conservatives believe, for example,
that since homosexual marriage is widely disapproved of, the courts are
wrong to call them constitutional. There may be a time when
homosexual marriage will seem benign to most of us; that will be time
enough to change the law.
Philosophical liberals deny that a strongly held prejudice reflects a
moral value. A moral value is something that must be argued for in
favor of yet more basic values. It must be reasoned. One who says
"I hate niggers" is not expressing his personal value; he is expressing
only his prejudice. Prejudices are not entitled to constitutional
protection, no matter how widely held. It may be that once upon a
time, for all I know, that most Americans felt blacks were disgusting
creatures, undeserving of freedom. We cannot be overly tolerant and
say, "Well, that was their opinion." It was not their opinion, in
the view of the liberal, it was a feeling, and an ugly one at that.
The "elitists" were right to force a change and even go to war in the
face of resistance to change.
The philosophical conservative places great store in tradition,
stability and order and is opposed to piecemeal engineering. The
various 5-year or billion year plans by the U.S.S.R. were disasters
and we should learn by their mistakes. The trouble with this
conservative notion is that the U.S.S.R. was never a communist state
but only a totalitarian regime headed one after another by ruthless,
egomaniacs with no sense of, much less commitment to, the the
egalitarian ideal of communism as find it in Engels. The plans were
rigid and flawed, and this proved nothing whatsoever about the general
thesis that long range planning is a bad thing.
Philosophical liberalism is secular. It takes no position on whether
the world is godless. Instead, it adopts the credo of humanism.
People are free to worship a god or to be atheists, and the state must
not in any way take sides. Conservatives (not all) tend to believe
that Christianity has a stranglehold on truth and (smugly) tolerate
other religions but not atheism as the right of all of us. Thus,
Congress opens its daily sessions with an invocation of God's
blessings. Presidents announce that "With God's help we shall
prevail." We "trust in God" and collect pennies. Democratic
candidates are fearful to alienate. None ever says, "Obviously there
is no God.." That is the kiss of political death. It is believed
that Americans won't stand for it. "God hates the sin but loves the
sinner"; nevertheless, literally, a dozen people said that my son's
death from AIDS was God's curse upon him. Others stood up and
cheered. Arch conservative "mentality".
Most of all, philosophical liberals believe that reason should always
take ascendancy over custom and tradition. We take no a priori stands
on war, gun control, abortion, welfare, the use of drugs, capital
punishment, affirmative action. multiculturalism or anything else.
We try to think it through. Some of us come down on one side of an
issue and others come down on the opposing side. This is good. This
is right. I am proud to be a philosophical liberal. Aren't you?
what below is NOT rational
whereas i can list endlessless the irrationality and its ever growing prominence in our 'elected' officials and their actions--and a governemtn without a clear logical consistent basis free of hypocrisy has no anchor and no way to be taken serioously
anyway --besides that it is an interesting read, especially for some of the youger members here i think
from his website:
LIBERALISM
I don't recall when it all began. When did "liberalism" become, in
the opinion of at least some people, a term of opprobrium? I I think
it must have happened sometime after I graduated from college (1955)
because I never knew anyone when I was in high school or college who
didn't think of himself as liberal, regardless of his politics. We
knew that not to be liberal was to be illiberal, and who, in his right
mind, would boast of that?
In the late 50s socially controversial programs became more prominent.
Abortion, welfare, affirmative action were hot topics as they had
never been in the 40s and most of the 50s. (In the 50s, most abortions
were obtained, not by unwed teenagers but by married women over the age
of 35 who, having two or three children, unintentionally got pregnant.)
Although it is not clear that any conceptual links exist between being
in favor of the right to abort and favoring affirmative action, these
programs tended to be supported by the same people. They made common
cause on these and a bewildering wide batch of other issues. For
whatever obscure reason, they became associated, too, with the
"Lefties" - socialists and communist sympathizers. It is hard to see
why a communist should be more inclined, say, to gun control than a
capitalist but let us charitably turn our heads away from the painful
sight of this grouping. When the Vietnam War happened, "peaceniks"
were everywhere - despicably unclean, unshaven youth (in Nixon's eyes)
- who, once and for all, consolidated the Left (once a purely political
philosophy) with the outcries for social upheaval of so-called
"Liberals". In other words, we took a GIANT step from "liberal" to
"Liberal". Now, then, Liberals were fair game. We can easily
imagine that often in the privacy of the Oval Room, (if we ignore the
mystifying taping) Nixon proclaiming loudly to all nearby (except
Kissinger), "Fucking Jewish Liberals!"
By Reagan's time, "Liberal" was certifiably an insult. Today's
Democratic candidates are usually at pains to disavow any strong
Liberal sentiments. They like to think of themselves as centrists,
moderates or just to the left of center and prefer not to bring the
guardians of decency down on their heads. They like terms like
"N-word" in lieu of "nigger" and eschew anything that vaguely has a
radical odor. They proclaim loudly against pornography, prostitution
and the use of drugs. They wrongly and dumbly buy into the absurdity
that these are radical leftist ideals. Even George McGovern's
liberalism consisted of nothing much more than devotion to ending a
war.
PHILOSOPHICAL LIBERALISM
Philosophical liberals preach indidualism and autonomy. For example,
Robert P. Wolff has written that it is ALWAYS wrong to obey any law,
however sensible it is. To obey to to accept subjugation, to do as
one is told. This doesn't mean we should not conform our conduct to
the requirements of law. For, as I said, some laws are sensible and
wise. One adopts them from one's own sense of rightness. One never
says, "Well, it's the law so we have got to obey it." Yet this idea
is widely accepted. One who accepts this idea that "law is law" is
not a Liberal. Laws may be civilly disobeyed if they are wrong and we
don't have to wait for them to be changed. It is by challenge that
they get changed. That was Martin Luther King's credo and he was
absolutely right. (And it is by challenging the idea that we must
remove Bush whatever Democratic incompetent we need to replace him that
we are assured that a good person will never be President.)
Philosophical liberals are quick to seek remedies for social
injustices and they believe that fundamental human rights have priority
over the good of the community. Thus they hold that the recent
infringement upon civil liberties by the Ashcroft/Ridge cabal that are
undertaken in the name of pressing security concerns are misguided not
only because they are unnecessary but simply because they are morally
wrong, and morality cannot be sacrificed for speculative social
causes.
In contrast, philosophical conservatives believe that people are not
entities-in-themselves but are defined by their membership in a group.
America is a thing over and above the individuals who are its citizens
and it deserves our unconditional love. "Right or wrong but my
country." Individuals have no true identity except as they are
Jewishor Christian, patriots or spies, black or white. Conservatives
put great store on the accumulated wisdom of experience and think that
elitists are trying to impose their radical vision on the "average man"
- "the man on the 5th Avenue bus". Morality can change, they
confess, but it must change slowly. Laws must reflect custom and not
lead us away from what we are most familiar with. Laws can shift but
this must come after they have gained the approval of the majority and
must not hit us over the head. Conservatives believe, for example,
that since homosexual marriage is widely disapproved of, the courts are
wrong to call them constitutional. There may be a time when
homosexual marriage will seem benign to most of us; that will be time
enough to change the law.
Philosophical liberals deny that a strongly held prejudice reflects a
moral value. A moral value is something that must be argued for in
favor of yet more basic values. It must be reasoned. One who says
"I hate niggers" is not expressing his personal value; he is expressing
only his prejudice. Prejudices are not entitled to constitutional
protection, no matter how widely held. It may be that once upon a
time, for all I know, that most Americans felt blacks were disgusting
creatures, undeserving of freedom. We cannot be overly tolerant and
say, "Well, that was their opinion." It was not their opinion, in
the view of the liberal, it was a feeling, and an ugly one at that.
The "elitists" were right to force a change and even go to war in the
face of resistance to change.
The philosophical conservative places great store in tradition,
stability and order and is opposed to piecemeal engineering. The
various 5-year or billion year plans by the U.S.S.R. were disasters
and we should learn by their mistakes. The trouble with this
conservative notion is that the U.S.S.R. was never a communist state
but only a totalitarian regime headed one after another by ruthless,
egomaniacs with no sense of, much less commitment to, the the
egalitarian ideal of communism as find it in Engels. The plans were
rigid and flawed, and this proved nothing whatsoever about the general
thesis that long range planning is a bad thing.
Philosophical liberalism is secular. It takes no position on whether
the world is godless. Instead, it adopts the credo of humanism.
People are free to worship a god or to be atheists, and the state must
not in any way take sides. Conservatives (not all) tend to believe
that Christianity has a stranglehold on truth and (smugly) tolerate
other religions but not atheism as the right of all of us. Thus,
Congress opens its daily sessions with an invocation of God's
blessings. Presidents announce that "With God's help we shall
prevail." We "trust in God" and collect pennies. Democratic
candidates are fearful to alienate. None ever says, "Obviously there
is no God.." That is the kiss of political death. It is believed
that Americans won't stand for it. "God hates the sin but loves the
sinner"; nevertheless, literally, a dozen people said that my son's
death from AIDS was God's curse upon him. Others stood up and
cheered. Arch conservative "mentality".
Most of all, philosophical liberals believe that reason should always
take ascendancy over custom and tradition. We take no a priori stands
on war, gun control, abortion, welfare, the use of drugs, capital
punishment, affirmative action. multiculturalism or anything else.
We try to think it through. Some of us come down on one side of an
issue and others come down on the opposing side. This is good. This
is right. I am proud to be a philosophical liberal. Aren't you?
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2002
- Messages
- 8,897
EVEN THOUGH I AM A STAUNCH REPUBLICAN.. i am getting more and more concerned over the goverment intrusion into our lives on even the most miniscule "reasons"..i can not have ephedra because of a samll number of deaths which the majority were of abuse..i eventually will lose the right to use pro hormones.. i have now been told that creatine is unsafe for me and they are thinking of taking that away..only to help protect me.. i also did not realize that roids would make me beat my wife and give me cancer..thank god that they are there for us.. lord knows that i was thinking of beating my wife and did not know why.. i am glad they are looking out for me.. i also did not know that steroids make up for all inabilities.. that i would have eventually hit 70 homeruns irregardless of my bad hand/eye coordination..i am thankful that the goverment will take matters into their own hands regarding steroids in sports.. after all. the baseball union just does not have the ability to govern the use .."sigh" i mean the goverment should take over all sports and run them the way they see fit.. we are very inadequete in every regard of everyday life..
i am going to take up smoking.. it is obviously safe ..they have not taken that away so it has to be safe.. they only take away the bad things that can harm us...right? i will also start drinking alittle and popping various over the counter painkillers..i know they kill millions a year but, it must be a fluke.. after all, the goverment wants only whats best for me...
i am going to take up smoking.. it is obviously safe ..they have not taken that away so it has to be safe.. they only take away the bad things that can harm us...right? i will also start drinking alittle and popping various over the counter painkillers..i know they kill millions a year but, it must be a fluke.. after all, the goverment wants only whats best for me...
LATS said:EVEN THOUGH I AM A STAUNCH REPUBLICAN.. i am getting more and more concerned over the goverment intrusion into our lives on even the most miniscule "reasons"..i can not have ephedra because of a samll number of deaths which the majority were of abuse..i eventually will lose the right to use pro hormones.. i have now been told that creatine is unsafe for me and they are thinking of taking that away..only to help protect me.. i also did not realize that roids would make me beat my wife and give me cancer..thank god that they are there for us.. lord knows that i was thinking of beating my wife and did not know why.. i am glad they are looking out for me.. i also did not know that steroids make up for all inabilities.. that i would have eventually hit 70 homeruns irregardless of my bad hand/eye coordination..i am thankful that the goverment will take matters into their own hands regarding steroids in sports.. after all. the baseball union just does not have the ability to govern the use .."sigh" i mean the goverment should take over all sports and run them the way they see fit.. we are very inadequete in every regard of everyday life..
i am going to take up smoking.. it is obviously safe ..they have not taken that away so it has to be safe.. they only take away the bad things that can harm us...right? i will also start drinking alittle and popping various over the counter painkillers..i know they kill millions a year but, it must be a fluke.. after all, the goverment wants only whats best for me...
I agree with you lats, but what can we do?
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2002
- Messages
- 369
Republican here too
The problem is teenagers using it. That is why this hype is happening. Nobody cares if a 30+ yr old uses it. If a kid comes up to you in the gym and asks. tell them NOT to juice. Until people do that Bodybuilders are targets. Some amoung us dont know when to shut up on the issue. They just had on FOX news some 17 yr old kids dad who killed himself AFTER using juice (yeah right). Page Hopkins asked the father ,where do teenagers get these steroids and his reply was internet, and the "big" guys in the gym (for the most part) He even acknolged that he grew up in the "era" where steroids were not a problem (now that make no sense) In my opinion we should shut about it in public, and voice opinions in here, but some of us want to use this issue to have purpose in life and there are the ones who are screwing it up for the rest of us.
The problem is teenagers using it. That is why this hype is happening. Nobody cares if a 30+ yr old uses it. If a kid comes up to you in the gym and asks. tell them NOT to juice. Until people do that Bodybuilders are targets. Some amoung us dont know when to shut up on the issue. They just had on FOX news some 17 yr old kids dad who killed himself AFTER using juice (yeah right). Page Hopkins asked the father ,where do teenagers get these steroids and his reply was internet, and the "big" guys in the gym (for the most part) He even acknolged that he grew up in the "era" where steroids were not a problem (now that make no sense) In my opinion we should shut about it in public, and voice opinions in here, but some of us want to use this issue to have purpose in life and there are the ones who are screwing it up for the rest of us.
JETHRO TULL
FOUNDING Member / Featured Member / Verified Custo
Featured Member
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Verified Customer
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2002
- Messages
- 8,481
BRAVO....COULD YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC IN WHO YOU ARE REFERING TO?
I AM A CONSERVATIVE AS WELL. I AGREE WITH WHAT LATS, EXCEL AND MIKE HAVE POSTED.
I AM JUST WONDERING IF YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT SOMEONE IN PARTICULAR? MY PERSONAL TAKE: IF YOU HAVE STRONG VIEWS ON RELIGION, POLITICS OR SOME SOCIAL INJUSTICE...<SUCH AS THE IGNORANT LAWS IN OUR COUNTRY CONCERNING HORMONE USAGE> THE MEASURE OF A MAN WOULD DICTATE AN ACTIVE STAND ON THESE ISSUES. WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?
I WATCHED THAT STORY ON THE NEWS TONIGHT ABOUT KIDS GETTING STEROIDS FROM 'BIG GUYS' AT THE GYM. I HAVE TO DOUBT THAT.....IN MY OWN CASE <AND I'LL BET THE GREAT MAJORITY OF LIFTERS>I WOULD BE VERY DISINCLINED TO ENGAGE IN SUCH A STUPID ENTERPRISE.
I AM A CONSERVATIVE AS WELL. I AGREE WITH WHAT LATS, EXCEL AND MIKE HAVE POSTED.
I AM JUST WONDERING IF YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT SOMEONE IN PARTICULAR? MY PERSONAL TAKE: IF YOU HAVE STRONG VIEWS ON RELIGION, POLITICS OR SOME SOCIAL INJUSTICE...<SUCH AS THE IGNORANT LAWS IN OUR COUNTRY CONCERNING HORMONE USAGE> THE MEASURE OF A MAN WOULD DICTATE AN ACTIVE STAND ON THESE ISSUES. WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?
I WATCHED THAT STORY ON THE NEWS TONIGHT ABOUT KIDS GETTING STEROIDS FROM 'BIG GUYS' AT THE GYM. I HAVE TO DOUBT THAT.....IN MY OWN CASE <AND I'LL BET THE GREAT MAJORITY OF LIFTERS>I WOULD BE VERY DISINCLINED TO ENGAGE IN SUCH A STUPID ENTERPRISE.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2002
- Messages
- 202
Good point lats
LATS said:EVEN THOUGH I AM A STAUNCH REPUBLICAN.. i am getting more and more concerned over the goverment intrusion into our lives on even the most miniscule "reasons"..i can not have ephedra because of a samll number of deaths which the majority were of abuse..i eventually will lose the right to use pro hormones.. i have now been told that creatine is unsafe for me and they are thinking of taking that away..only to help protect me.. i also did not realize that roids would make me beat my wife and give me cancer..thank god that they are there for us.. lord knows that i was thinking of beating my wife and did not know why.. i am glad they are looking out for me.. i also did not know that steroids make up for all inabilities.. that i would have eventually hit 70 homeruns irregardless of my bad hand/eye coordination..i am thankful that the goverment will take matters into their own hands regarding steroids in sports.. after all. the baseball union just does not have the ability to govern the use .."sigh" i mean the goverment should take over all sports and run them the way they see fit.. we are very inadequete in every regard of everyday life..
i am going to take up smoking.. it is obviously safe ..they have not taken that away so it has to be safe.. they only take away the bad things that can harm us...right? i will also start drinking alittle and popping various over the counter painkillers..i know they kill millions a year but, it must be a fluke.. after all, the goverment wants only whats best for me...
Interesting.
I like the old guy. And if you want my honest opinion, I'd vote for the guy.. Ok call me an idiot, and narrow minded if you will. But I'll be honest. I don't trust anyone that wants to become president. Thats one reason I think Colin Powell would probably make a pretty good one. He doesn't want it. But most these guys that want to become president is probably not fit for it. So looking at this across the board, 'someone' is getting voted in. And while my one vote won't really help, I'd rather sleep well at night knowing that I stated my opinion or vote on something that I felt strongly about. Even if my vote took one away from a 'better candidate' If everyone had my same mentality we'd probably have more libertarians sitting on house and senate seats. Hell, I rather have an idiot that is looking out for what we seem to be losing grip of and thats personal freedom and liberties. Than to have an assumtionally intelligent individual that is still out for popularity or worst yet fulfilling there own agenda at the cost of our freedom and privacy.
So call me ignorant if you will, call a damned old guy who is probably equally fed up and is now standing up against all odds to stand up for what he believes in. He has obviously improved his own life in his own hands than the government will ever do if left to their own devices. I assume it is Gendin that you call ignorant JB, Or is it peoples personal opinions that you once again seem to be attacking?? In any case. If by chance he ever got nominated, he's got my little miniscual vote, whether or not that vote is a waste I could give a damn, I know I'd sleep better at night by not voting for someone who I have little or no respect for.
Sup1
I like the old guy. And if you want my honest opinion, I'd vote for the guy.. Ok call me an idiot, and narrow minded if you will. But I'll be honest. I don't trust anyone that wants to become president. Thats one reason I think Colin Powell would probably make a pretty good one. He doesn't want it. But most these guys that want to become president is probably not fit for it. So looking at this across the board, 'someone' is getting voted in. And while my one vote won't really help, I'd rather sleep well at night knowing that I stated my opinion or vote on something that I felt strongly about. Even if my vote took one away from a 'better candidate' If everyone had my same mentality we'd probably have more libertarians sitting on house and senate seats. Hell, I rather have an idiot that is looking out for what we seem to be losing grip of and thats personal freedom and liberties. Than to have an assumtionally intelligent individual that is still out for popularity or worst yet fulfilling there own agenda at the cost of our freedom and privacy.
So call me ignorant if you will, call a damned old guy who is probably equally fed up and is now standing up against all odds to stand up for what he believes in. He has obviously improved his own life in his own hands than the government will ever do if left to their own devices. I assume it is Gendin that you call ignorant JB, Or is it peoples personal opinions that you once again seem to be attacking?? In any case. If by chance he ever got nominated, he's got my little miniscual vote, whether or not that vote is a waste I could give a damn, I know I'd sleep better at night by not voting for someone who I have little or no respect for.
Sup1
- Status
Similar threads
Members online
- razor_ryan
- danjb
- RSMainz
- COASTAL
- Nate Dawg
- dantes
- jt4330
- blupitbull
- cashrolling
- ROCKHEAD
- LATS
- luki7788
- ripriot
- Powerlifter
- adpolice
- Strongman1122
- TomJ
- R3aper7
- d4ve
- DirtyDan9
- qbkilla
- Big A
- aHarness
- FuriousAngus
- Sacario
- Gaintrain72
- johnjuanb1
- danieltx
- st114
- carbs
- Reporich
- dieselbuilder
- BigRisk
- control
- NEMSZ
- Pheedno
- Eatinpanties
- slesh
- IceCream
- NOWKICK
- buzzbomb138
- MasteroniPepperoni
- dxteran
- SunrisePharma
- gorilla66
- Palifter
- plsresmeihaveraygun
- the_unit
- bigjim6775
- massnup
Forum statistics
