I gotta call some people, I see serious Jackass fans buying commercial time for thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Youngblood
Printable View
I gotta call some people, I see serious Jackass fans buying commercial time for thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Youngblood
K buddy, who decided to bail out the Wall Street corporations that KNOWINGLY did wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Also who are these folks???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM
And why would those folks not want regulation????
It wasn't JUST the Republicans, I don't say the Republicans don't have blame, EVERYBODY has blame in this situation as it's big enough to share but the sooner you get off your high horse and realize that YOUR BOYS in the Democrat party did wrong as well, the better.
The bail out unfortunatlly we're stuck withQuote:
Originally Posted by LyleK buddy, who decided to bail out the Wall Street corporations that KNOWINGLY did wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Also who are these folks???
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM
And why would those folks not want regulation????
It wasn't JUST the Republicans, I don't say the Republicans don't have blame, EVERYBODY has blame in this situation as it's big enough to share but the sooner you get off your high horse and realize that YOUR BOYS in the Democrat party did wrong as well, the better.
Just like what the deregs of the S&L crisis got us
Your not looking at the cause,but the result.
Cmon sahib,your all about the free market takinkg care of everything,well who deregulated the mortgage industry?
Hint:Republicans
t r u t h o u t | Freddie Mac Secretly Paid Republican Firm to Kill Regulation
GOP LOBBY TIED TO KILLING OVERHAUL BILL - New York Post
Just to keep it fair and balanced
It's incredible. I explain stuff to you using facts and evidence to the point where you concede the argument. Then later you come out with exactly the same rubbish again. No matter how many times you're told that Fannie/Freddie/Jimmy Carter had nothing to do with the current mess it has no effect, it's like some kind of unkillable zombie lies that you can't not believe. This is why the mass gayification of conservatives has become necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by LyleTrue but it doesn't keep Democrats from being responsible for what they have done/will do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer MonkeyOh bull Lyle,you dont get the stink off you that easy,your party controlled congress for most of the Bush AdministrationQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Once again, Fannie/Freddie/Carter/Clinton are not responsible for the current mess. The removal of all regulation and oversight of the financial industry by the Bush administration and their 2004 deal to allow investment banks to lever up their debt:asset ratio from a safe 10-15:1 to 40 and 50 and more :1 is. If Fannie, Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act had never existed the exact same situation would currently exist.
In the summer of 2003, leaders of the four federal agencies that oversee the banking industry gathered to highlight the Bush administration's commitment to reducing regulation. They posed for photographers behind a stack of papers wrapped in red tape. The others held garden shears. Gilleran, who succeeded Seidman as OTS director in late 2001, hefted a chain saw.
Gilleran was an impassioned advocate of deregulation. He cut a quarter of the agency's 1,200 employees between 2001 and 2004, even though the value of loans and other assets of the firms regulated by OTS increased by half over the same period. The result was a mismatch between a short-handed agency and a burgeoning thrift industry.
Banking Regulator Played Advocate Over Enforcer - washingtonpost.com
The whole of this article is good, full of facts and evidence. It only covers one small part of the overall scrapping of regulation and oversight of the financial industry that Bush was responsible for too.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/...10526fd1_o.png
Say what you will Captain Happy but out of the Democrats' own mouths come the words that I can use against them. Fannie and Freddie ARE corrupt organizations and the reason why stems from the coupling of BUSINESS and GOVERNMENT...GSE's are WRONG!
Once again I don't say the Republicans are not at fault, I just say the Democrats need to admit that the Republicans aren't alone. I also say that the Democrats have fucked us over in continuously bailing out the Wall Street brats who sold EVERYBODY out!!!!
F and F are far less corrupt than the rest of the system. Now that the US government is currently bailing out every major US bank not only F and F but the entire US banking system are now Government Sponsored Enterprises. So is GEC, the car industry, half the insurance industry, state governments, etc. They're all socialist now baby. And again, if F and F had never existed the exact same thing would have happened. They're just two more privately-owned financial companies that are now on government welfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Republicans are alone. Exactly who has bailed everybody out so far Lyle?
Here's a new newspaper report today. I'm guessing this won't get much TV coverage :
The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.Bank regulators had proposed new guidelines for writing risky loans in 2005, but were rebuffed by the White House. The proposed regulations might have avoided the worst fo the housing and credit crisis, had they been enacted.
“Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories,” California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators in January 2006, about one year before the housing implosion cost her a job.
Bowing to aggressive lobbying — along with assurances from banks that the troubled mortgages were OK — regulators delayed action for nearly one year. By the time new rules were released late in 2006, the toughest of the proposed provisions were gone and the meltdown was under way.
“These mortgages have been considered more safe and sound for portfolio lenders than many fixed rate mortgages,” David Schneider, home loan president of Washington Mutual, told federal regulators in early 2006. Two years later, WaMu became the largest bank failure in U.S. history.
What was so especially damning was these proposals were all stripped from the final Administrative rules by the Bush White House. None required congressional approval or even the president’s signature:
• Before banks could purchase mortgages from brokers, they should verify the process to ensure buyers could afford their homes.The banks that lobbied most aggressively against the rules reads like a who’s who of bankruptcy and FDIC conservatorship: IndyMac, Countrywide Financial, Washington Mutual, Lehman Brothers, and Downey Savings.
• Regulators told bankers exotic mortgages were often inappropriate for buyers with bad credit.
• Banks would have been required to increase efforts to verify that buyers actually had jobs and could afford houses.
• Regulators proposed a cap on risky mortgages so a string of defaults wouldn’t be crippling.
• Banks that bundled and sold mortgages were told to be sure investors knew exactly what they were buying.
• Regulators urged banks to help buyers make responsible decisions and clearly advise them that interest rates might skyrocket and huge payments might be due sooner than expected.
The Associated Press: AP IMPACT: US diluted loan rules before crash
• Marshall Plan: Cost: $12.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $115.3 billion
• Louisiana Purchase: Cost: $15 million, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $217 billion
• Race to the Moon: Cost: $36.4 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $237 billion
• S&L Crisis: Cost: $153 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $256 billion
• Korean War: Cost: $54 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $454 billion
• The New Deal: Cost: $32 billion (Est), Inflation Adjusted Cost: $500 billion (Est)
• Invasion of Iraq: Cost: $551b, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $597 billion
• Vietnam War: Cost: $111 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $698 billion
• NASA: Cost: $416.7 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $851.2 billion
TOTAL: $3.92 trillion
World War II: Original Cost: $288 billion, Inflation Adjusted Cost: $3.6 trillion
Total cost : $7.52 trillion.
Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government is prepared to provide more than $7.76 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers after guaranteeing $306 billion of Citigroup Inc. debt yesterday. The pledges, amounting to half the value of everything produced in the nation last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up 15 months ago.
The unprecedented pledge of funds includes $3.18 trillion already tapped by financial institutions in the biggest response to an economic emergency since the New Deal of the 1930s, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The commitment dwarfs the plan approved by lawmakers, the Treasury Department’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Federal Reserve lending last week was 1,900 times the weekly average for the three years before the crisis.
When Congress approved the TARP on Oct. 3, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged the need for transparency and oversight. Now, as regulators commit far more money while refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return, some Congress members are calling for the Fed to be reined in.
Bloomberg.com: Exclusive
So congress is now calling for the Fed to be reined in but did they or did they not vote to bail out companies only AFTER putting in a little pork just to win some more votes over.
Oh it's mighty scary how much power the Fed Chairman wields now. But to not give any blame to the people that voted for these big bail outs is wrong.
I'll admit I like SOME reality TV, but it really depends on how it is produced. I don't like anything on MTV they pass off as reality. Primarily because it's not geared to my age group. But also because it in no way shape or form resembles reality. Cops is reality (except for when the cop decides to get extra flexy when he brings down a baddy), Taxicab Confessions is reality, Intervention is hella reality. The only show I can really think of that is more like MTV is Scream Queens and it's for a very specific reason: it's more of a gameshow than reality. They are competing for a definite, real prize; a starring role in a hit movie franchise (Saw series). It's not trying to improve a group of crazy women (Charm School) or picking off fatties one by one (The Biggest Loser). Sure 'Loser' has a prize at the end, but the purpose of the show is to help these people lose weight. Why are they being eliminated then? Shouldn't they all stay on the show and the person who loses the most at the end win? If the 'Charm' girls need this help, why boot them? Because it's about something other than this alleged improvement they state. At least with 'Queens' we have a defined task and only one can win. It makes sense that they be elminated one by one. Who the hell cares who wants to be Paris Hilton's next best friend who she'll be dumping on sometime in the coming year? And the dating shows are the worst. My parents hate my girlfriend so much they set me up to go on a date with two other girls. No, in REALITY, my parents wouldn't allow my girlfriend in the house if she were an uber-bitch. And don't stick my whiny ass in a house with a bunch of whiny 20 somethings. I used to love 'Real World', hell, I wanted to be on the show, but now I would be terminally bored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
As close as I get to reality TV, is Survivor Man, I used to watch Man Vs Wild, until it came out the whole thing was more or less canned,ruined it for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by KillfaceI'll admit I like SOME reality TV, but it really depends on how it is produced. I don't like anything on MTV they pass off as reality. Primarily because it's not geared to my age group. But also because it in no way shape or form resembles reality. Cops is reality (except for when the cop decides to get extra flexy when he brings down a baddy), Taxicab Confessions is reality, Intervention is hella reality. The only show I can really think of that is more like MTV is Scream Queens and it's for a very specific reason: it's more of a gameshow than reality. They are competing for a definite, real prize; a starring role in a hit movie franchise (Saw series). It's not trying to improve a group of crazy women (Charm School) or picking off fatties one by one (The Biggest Loser). Sure 'Loser' has a prize at the end, but the purpose of the show is to help these people lose weight. Why are they being eliminated then? Shouldn't they all stay on the show and the person who loses the most at the end win? If the 'Charm' girls need this help, why boot them? Because it's about something other than this alleged improvement they state. At least with 'Queens' we have a defined task and only one can win. It makes sense that they be elminated one by one. Who the hell cares who wants to be Paris Hilton's next best friend who she'll be dumping on sometime in the coming year? And the dating shows are the worst. My parents hate my girlfriend so much they set me up to go on a date with two other girls. No, in REALITY, my parents wouldn't allow my girlfriend in the house if she were an uber-bitch. And don't stick my whiny ass in a house with a bunch of whiny 20 somethings. I used to love 'Real World', hell, I wanted to be on the show, but now I would be terminally bored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
The only reality TV I watch is the news. Those other reality shows I stay away from. I find nothing more tedious than watching stupid people with nothing to say. And putting them in bizarre locations is just futile too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer MonkeyAs close as I get to reality TV, is Survivor Man, I used to watch Man Vs Wild, until it came out the whole thing was more or less canned,ruined it for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by KillfaceI'll admit I like SOME reality TV, but it really depends on how it is produced. I don't like anything on MTV they pass off as reality. Primarily because it's not geared to my age group. But also because it in no way shape or form resembles reality. Cops is reality (except for when the cop decides to get extra flexy when he brings down a baddy), Taxicab Confessions is reality, Intervention is hella reality. The only show I can really think of that is more like MTV is Scream Queens and it's for a very specific reason: it's more of a gameshow than reality. They are competing for a definite, real prize; a starring role in a hit movie franchise (Saw series). It's not trying to improve a group of crazy women (Charm School) or picking off fatties one by one (The Biggest Loser). Sure 'Loser' has a prize at the end, but the purpose of the show is to help these people lose weight. Why are they being eliminated then? Shouldn't they all stay on the show and the person who loses the most at the end win? If the 'Charm' girls need this help, why boot them? Because it's about something other than this alleged improvement they state. At least with 'Queens' we have a defined task and only one can win. It makes sense that they be elminated one by one. Who the hell cares who wants to be Paris Hilton's next best friend who she'll be dumping on sometime in the coming year? And the dating shows are the worst. My parents hate my girlfriend so much they set me up to go on a date with two other girls. No, in REALITY, my parents wouldn't allow my girlfriend in the house if she were an uber-bitch. And don't stick my whiny ass in a house with a bunch of whiny 20 somethings. I used to love 'Real World', hell, I wanted to be on the show, but now I would be terminally bored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
I would love it if we could put all of these people into a situation where their life depended on a single question though. And the minute they get the question wrong, their brains are blown out live or even prerecorded on television. Now that would be reality TV I might tune into. ;)
Its all bollocks.
They have this show here that my wife watches and its basically famous people sharing a house and the cameras observe them eating yoghurt. I refuse to watch it and typically resort to posting on the internet!
I think that was the show Johnny Rotten got kicked off of,for,well,being Johnny Rotten.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesThe only reality TV I watch is the news. Those other reality shows I stay away from. I find nothing more tedious than watching stupid people with nothing to say. And putting them in bizarre locations is just futile too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer MonkeyAs close as I get to reality TV, is Survivor Man, I used to watch Man Vs Wild, until it came out the whole thing was more or less canned,ruined it for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Killface
I would love it if we could put all of these people into a situation where their life depended on a single question though. And the minute they get the question wrong, their brains are blown out live or even prerecorded on television. Now that would be reality TV I might tune into. ;)
Its all bollocks.
They have this show here that my wife watches and its basically famous people sharing a house and the cameras observe them eating yoghurt. I refuse to watch it and typically resort to posting on the internet!
Id LOVE to see those episodes
I prefer Survivor Man too. And not only because Bear Grills goes to a hotel every night. Survivor Man is out there all by himself; he's his own camera crew and if he gets in over his head he calls for them to come scoop him up. I'm telling you, Intervention is one of the most compelling reality shows you can find. A lot of them are whiny, but they're almost all stories that will draw you right in. These are people who are completely self-centered, who accept no personal responsibility for the situation they are in. But the impact on their families is where you have the meat of the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer MonkeyAs close as I get to reality TV, is Survivor Man, I used to watch Man Vs Wild, until it came out the whole thing was more or less canned,ruined it for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by KillfaceI'll admit I like SOME reality TV, but it really depends on how it is produced. I don't like anything on MTV they pass off as reality. Primarily because it's not geared to my age group. But also because it in no way shape or form resembles reality. Cops is reality (except for when the cop decides to get extra flexy when he brings down a baddy), Taxicab Confessions is reality, Intervention is hella reality. The only show I can really think of that is more like MTV is Scream Queens and it's for a very specific reason: it's more of a gameshow than reality. They are competing for a definite, real prize; a starring role in a hit movie franchise (Saw series). It's not trying to improve a group of crazy women (Charm School) or picking off fatties one by one (The Biggest Loser). Sure 'Loser' has a prize at the end, but the purpose of the show is to help these people lose weight. Why are they being eliminated then? Shouldn't they all stay on the show and the person who loses the most at the end win? If the 'Charm' girls need this help, why boot them? Because it's about something other than this alleged improvement they state. At least with 'Queens' we have a defined task and only one can win. It makes sense that they be elminated one by one. Who the hell cares who wants to be Paris Hilton's next best friend who she'll be dumping on sometime in the coming year? And the dating shows are the worst. My parents hate my girlfriend so much they set me up to go on a date with two other girls. No, in REALITY, my parents wouldn't allow my girlfriend in the house if she were an uber-bitch. And don't stick my whiny ass in a house with a bunch of whiny 20 somethings. I used to love 'Real World', hell, I wanted to be on the show, but now I would be terminally bored.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Like for instance this one where this guy was an alcoholic. He'd been an avid body builder for years and even owned his own gym. But then one of the drugs he used was illegalized and the guy went on a downward spiral. He had a shitty upbringing, of course, and had had to drop out of school to take care of his entire family because his father left and his mother was pretty much useless. He never had a childhood and the guy wound up dying not long after getting booted out of the rehab clinic. The damage had been done; he had bruises all over his body from where the alcohol was wailing on him. Pretty much taking him off vodkie then was pointless.
What show was he on? Im sure I heard about him being on some show or other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer MonkeyI think that was the show Johnny Rotten got kicked off of,for,well,being Johnny Rotten.Quote:
Originally Posted by milesThe only reality TV I watch is the news. Those other reality shows I stay away from. I find nothing more tedious than watching stupid people with nothing to say. And putting them in bizarre locations is just futile too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
I would love it if we could put all of these people into a situation where their life depended on a single question though. And the minute they get the question wrong, their brains are blown out live or even prerecorded on television. Now that would be reality TV I might tune into. ;)
Its all bollocks.
They have this show here that my wife watches and its basically famous people sharing a house and the cameras observe them eating yoghurt. I refuse to watch it and typically resort to posting on the internet!
Id LOVE to see those episodes
I was referring to this silly show with a bunch of Korean "pop" stars with mullets sitting on a sofa sharing yoghurt and talking about makeup tips. Horrible stuff and enough to make a man want to put a foot into the TV.
Had to look it up,but he was on "Im A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here"Quote:
Originally Posted by milesWhat show was he on? Im sure I heard about him being on some show or other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer MonkeyI think that was the show Johnny Rotten got kicked off of,for,well,being Johnny Rotten.Quote:
Originally Posted by miles
Id LOVE to see those episodes
I was referring to this silly show with a bunch of Korean "pop" stars with mullets sitting on a sofa sharing yoghurt and talking about makeup tips. Horrible stuff and enough to make a man want to put a foot into the TV.
I would kill to see those episodes. I know he got kicked off,for well, being Johnny Rotten.
I think that was his entire goal in the first place,he does stuff like that all the time.
Thats the whole reason he does the Pistols reunions,to ruin the aura of the Pistols for kids who got a Pistols t-shirt at Hot Topic.
The guy lives to be a smart arse
I swear drug companies should do more research before they release stuff to the general public.Quote:
Originally Posted by KillfaceI prefer Survivor Man too. And not only because Bear Grills goes to a hotel every night. Survivor Man is out there all by himself; he's his own camera crew and if he gets in over his head he calls for them to come scoop him up. I'm telling you, Intervention is one of the most compelling reality shows you can find. A lot of them are whiny, but they're almost all stories that will draw you right in. These are people who are completely self-centered, who accept no personal responsibility for the situation they are in. But the impact on their families is where you have the meat of the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer MonkeyAs close as I get to reality TV, is Survivor Man, I used to watch Man Vs Wild, until it came out the whole thing was more or less canned,ruined it for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Killface
Like for instance this one where this guy was an alcoholic. He'd been an avid body builder for years and even owned his own gym. But then one of the drugs he used was illegalized and the guy went on a downward spiral. He had a shitty upbringing, of course, and had had to drop out of school to take care of his entire family because his father left and his mother was pretty much useless. He never had a childhood and the guy wound up dying not long after getting booted out of the rehab clinic. The damage had been done; he had bruises all over his body from where the alcohol was wailing on him. Pretty much taking him off vodkie then was pointless.
I used to use the hell out of Andro,and got good results from it.
Now its classified as a steroid
It wasnt when I was taking it.
Not only did it screw with my hairline(which is back to normal,thanks for asking) but every athletic achievement I had during that period is now suspect to me.
I understand what you mean, but you do realize that statement is completely laughable. It's the blindfolded leading the blind. They've learned from the cigarette companies well and know how not to know negative effects of their products. I was reading a fiction novel (I lost it somewhere) and one of the characters was researching a drug and the companies immediately began trying to buy the guy off. I know that's not real, but considering drug companies are making money hand over fist I can see this easily happening. Did you know it is illegal in Canada for drug companies to advertise? Why is it legal here? Well, if you think you have the symptoms described you go to your doctor and say, "I want a prescription for this!" And you may well have restless leg syndrome, but you may not and your doctor has one of two choices: give you a couple sampler boxes of the drug he got from the drug rep or tell you know and risk losing you as a patient as you shop for a doctor who will give you a sampler box. I think I may have ADD and I wanted to be tested. I wasn't looking for the drug, I only wanted a test to confirm one way or the other. My doctor at the time wrote me an Rx for a small box after asking me a few questions. Then she left it up to me to decide if I felt an improvement. Drug companies are able to create a market for their wares, rather than creating a drug to combat people's ailments. That's why they can pay multi-million dollar fines when they recommend their drugs to be used for unapproved uses with no problem. That's another thing that's begun. Say Viagra (I'm not suggesting it's true, just an example) has been alleged to clear up acne. It hasn't been submitted to the FDA for this purpose, which would probably take years to test and approve (unlike the current use for Viagra which was pushed through in a matter of months) but based on the strength of whomever's testimony they begin pushing docs to prescribe Viagra for acne. The fed steps in, fines Pfizer $7 mil, but that's not really a hindrance because profits specifically for scripts for Viagra in the cases of patients with acne tower over the meager fine. I can't site numbers as I heard the story some months ago, but this is essentially the gist of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer MonkeyI swear drug companies should do more research before they release stuff to the general public.Quote:
Originally Posted by KillfaceI prefer Survivor Man too. And not only because Bear Grills goes to a hotel every night. Survivor Man is out there all by himself; he's his own camera crew and if he gets in over his head he calls for them to come scoop him up. I'm telling you, Intervention is one of the most compelling reality shows you can find. A lot of them are whiny, but they're almost all stories that will draw you right in. These are people who are completely self-centered, who accept no personal responsibility for the situation they are in. But the impact on their families is where you have the meat of the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Like for instance this one where this guy was an alcoholic. He'd been an avid body builder for years and even owned his own gym. But then one of the drugs he used was illegalized and the guy went on a downward spiral. He had a shitty upbringing, of course, and had had to drop out of school to take care of his entire family because his father left and his mother was pretty much useless. He never had a childhood and the guy wound up dying not long after getting booted out of the rehab clinic. The damage had been done; he had bruises all over his body from where the alcohol was wailing on him. Pretty much taking him off vodkie then was pointless.
I used to use the hell out of Andro,and got good results from it.
Now its classified as a steroid
It wasnt when I was taking it.
Not only did it screw with my hairline(which is back to normal,thanks for asking) but every athletic achievement I had during that period is now suspect to me.
Well now we're getting in to the realm of,how things are, and how things should beQuote:
Originally Posted by KillfaceI understand what you mean, but you do realize that statement is completely laughable. It's the blindfolded leading the blind. They've learned from the cigarette companies well and know how not to know negative effects of their products. I was reading a fiction novel (I lost it somewhere) and one of the characters was researching a drug and the companies immediately began trying to buy the guy off. I know that's not real, but considering drug companies are making money hand over fist I can see this easily happening. Did you know it is illegal in Canada for drug companies to advertise? Why is it legal here? Well, if you think you have the symptoms described you go to your doctor and say, "I want a prescription for this!" And you may well have restless leg syndrome, but you may not and your doctor has one of two choices: give you a couple sampler boxes of the drug he got from the drug rep or tell you know and risk losing you as a patient as you shop for a doctor who will give you a sampler box. I think I may have ADD and I wanted to be tested. I wasn't looking for the drug, I only wanted a test to confirm one way or the other. My doctor at the time wrote me an Rx for a small box after asking me a few questions. Then she left it up to me to decide if I felt an improvement. Drug companies are able to create a market for their wares, rather than creating a drug to combat people's ailments. That's why they can pay multi-million dollar fines when they recommend their drugs to be used for unapproved uses with no problem. That's another thing that's begun. Say Viagra (I'm not suggesting it's true, just an example) has been alleged to clear up acne. It hasn't been submitted to the FDA for this purpose, which would probably take years to test and approve (unlike the current use for Viagra which was pushed through in a matter of months) but based on the strength of whomever's testimony they begin pushing docs to prescribe Viagra for acne. The fed steps in, fines Pfizer $7 mil, but that's not really a hindrance because profits specifically for scripts for Viagra in the cases of patients with acne tower over the meager fine. I can't site numbers as I heard the story some months ago, but this is essentially the gist of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer MonkeyI swear drug companies should do more research before they release stuff to the general public.Quote:
Originally Posted by Killface
I used to use the hell out of Andro,and got good results from it.
Now its classified as a steroid
It wasnt when I was taking it.
Not only did it screw with my hairline(which is back to normal,thanks for asking) but every athletic achievement I had during that period is now suspect to me.
But how things should be,if I pick up a totally legal supplement at my local GNC.
It should be just that, a totally legal supplement.
It shouldnt turn out 4 years later to be a steroid
It isn't wrong at all, it's exactly right. The original proposal Bush sent Congress was a one page document that gave the Bush Treasury total control over the $700 billion with zero congressional oversight and immunity from prosecution should there be any corruption in spending the 700. Congress eventually passed a far better bill for the taxpayer than the GOP originally wanted. And Congress was forced to pass the bailout bill because Bush had fucked the economy up to such an extent it was in danger of total meltdown. If they hadn't passed anything we'd already be facing a Depression, as it is we may still avoid one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
But let's lay the blame where it belongs Lyle. The Democrats had nothing to do with this, this is all Bush's fault.
...whatever, it's your problem now captain
It's not my problem at all. Nothing to dow ith me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
OK it's the democrat's problem now....is that better???
I thought the GOP were the party of personal responsibility?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Correct but they aren't in power and therefore cannot do anything about the current situation now can they?
They were in power except for the last two years though,and even losing congress,they still held both the legislative and judicial branches,which would make that two out of three branches of the US goverment,you dont get to wiggle out of it that easy Lyle,its your mess,wear it with pride or shame,however you see fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
man those shows fucking suck, big brother, get me out of here, make a cunt of your self in front of the wrold and try to sing or dance bla bla
shit the only time id ever watch one is if they done a Saw type thing and it was real, where people had to actualy fuck eachother up to get free and live (and then they get shot or sumin when the think they are free)
now that would be fucking good and worth watching.
The judges #1 Aren't classified as Republican or Democrat and #2 Aren't involved in law making unless the law/bill conflicts with the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Thank you Preme for getting us back on track
I thought they were allowed to interpret the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by LyleThe judges #1 Aren't classified as Republican or Democrat and #2 Aren't involved in law making unless the law/bill conflicts with the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Thank you Preme for getting us back on track
I mean you guys have been bitching about judicial activism for 30 years now
You mean,now that owning two of three branches of government for the last 8 years, and all three for 6 out of the last eight years has made this your fault,there werent any activist judges after all?
Very selective reasoning
Funny Limbloat and NewsMax kept going on about all these activist judges,you mean the right wing lied to the American People 24/7?
Sorry its your hole,your party dug it
There ARE judges on the court right now who view the Constitution as a "living document" therefore making them the activist judges you speak of.
So if your party controls both the executive,and judicial branches of government,and has control of the legislative branch for most of the last 18 years.....................
"WHO'S HOUSE? RUN'S HOUSE"
Here I'll help you,the legislative branch writes the laws,that would be the part except for brief periods your party has controlled for most of the last 18 years,writes the laws. The executive branch,which your party has controlled for 28 of the last 40 years,signs the laws,and the judicial branch which again your party has controlled for roughly 20 years interprets them.
And this would not be your parties fault how,precisely.
Its your pig sty, you can wallow in it.
Trainer, the Republicans nor the Democrats run the Judicial Branch....judges are chosen on their merits and their reasoning behind what they believe.
And virtually all of the big court cases in recent years have been 5-4 which doesn't imply a great deal of control like you want to make everyone believe.
Oh bull pucky Lyle,everybody knows how the high court breaks,and by what party affiliationQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Scalia aint no Democrat,nor is Roberts or Thomas,or Alito. Stevens is a Ford appointee,Souter is a Bush 1 appointee,Kennedy was Reagan one.
So all but two justices are Republican nominees
Who is president right now Lyle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
And the guys who actually do the most legislating from the bench are Scalia and thomas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer MonkeyOh bull pucky Lyle,everybody knows how the high court breaks,and by what party affiliationQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Scalia aint no Democrat,nor is Roberts or Thomas,or Alito. Stevens is a Ford appointee,Souter is a Bush 1 appointee,Kennedy was Reagan one.
So all but two justices are Republican nominees
Please state your case using facts
What case, o Always Wrong One?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
When have I never used facts?
About Scalia and Thomas legislating from the benchQuote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingWhat case, o Always Wrong One?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
When have I never used facts?
As for you Trainer...."It's not a conservative-liberal fight on the court," Scalia said. "It really isn't. It has to do with what your view of the Constitution is."