Our next possible VP

[SMCengineer]

For any Obama supporters out there, don't forget who his VP pick is:
http://www.steroid.com/video/#top (scroll down to the July 17th video titled "The Senator")

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

Thank God Muscle Tech is legal.

[SMCengineer]

Thank God Muscle Tech is legal.

That is until Biden decides it's not good for you or a major pharmacetical company lobbies to make it illegal so you can only get it with a perscription. As was most likely the case with AAS. Coincidentally, his son lobbies for several major pharmacetical companies.

[byrdman]

lol where my post go on this racist prick obama
lol

[thegodfather]

lol where my post go on this racist prick obama
lol

Lets keep this thread factual and not indulge oursleves with matters of opinion..

[thegodfather]

Ohh I forgot to give an example....


Fact: Obama plagairizes Karl Ma** when writing his economic and social policies....




Im being sarcastic...sort of...

[oneshot]

if elected it will be a to all of us

[Tock]

Huh . . .
As if the current VP and President have been any friendlier to our interests. I can't imagine that the candidates the Republicans have put up would change anything for the better . . .

The only Presidential candidate who would have taken a neutral approach to AS would have been Ron Paul, who, I am certain, all of us here have supported with anabolic enthusiasm . . .

[SMCengineer]

Huh . . .
As if the current VP and President have been any friendlier to our interests. I can't imagine that the candidates the Republicans have put up would change anything for the better . . .

1) No one said the current president or vice president have been any friendlier to us, but neither of them put forth such an effort to change the classification of AAS use as Joe Biden did. Although, Bush Sr. did sign the bill that Biden help pass.
2) A disliking for a candidate and his VP does not correlate into prefering the opposite candidate or party.
3) The question here isn't "what can the candidate change for the better for us as a community". It's what the candidate has already done that matters and Biden has done more harm to us (the AAS community) than any of them.

The only Presidential candidate who would have taken a neutral approach to AS would have been Ron Paul, who, I am certain, all of us here have supported with anabolic enthusiasm . . .

Agreed, but if you supported Ron Paul at one point, there's no reason why you should now be supporting any of the mainstream candidates as they are both the same.

[southmadejd]

Well I know one guy I wont get in a debate with.

[thegodfather]

1) No one said the current president or vice president have been any friendlier to us, but neither of them put forth such an effort to change the classification of AAS use as Joe Biden did. Although, Bush Sr. did sign the bill that Biden help pass.
2) A disliking for a candidate and his VP does not correlate into prefering the opposite candidate or party.
3) The question here isn't "what can the candidate change for the better for us as a community". It's what the candidate has already done that matters and Biden has done more harm to us (the AAS community) than any of them.


Agreed, but if you supported Ron Paul at one point, there's no reason why you should now be supporting any of the mainstream candidates as they are both the same.

Bob Barr for President!

[SMCengineer]

Bob Barr for President!

Exactly!

[Hoggage_54]

Bob Barr for President!

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Bob Barr a big supporter of the War on Drugs?

[Hoggage_54]

^ nevermind I just read up on him and he was once a supporter of it now he is against it for whatever reason

[BgMc31]

^^^Just like every other candidate, their supporters won't point out their flip-flops. So goes politics...I guess.

[SMCengineer]

^^Speak for yourself. Bob Barr was a staunch Neo-conservative until he turned Libertarian. Everyone who supports him knows this. It's called a revelation.

[BgMc31]

^^flip-flop/revelation...you say tomato I say tomato...whatever!

[SMCengineer]

^^flip-flop/revelation...you say tomato I say tomato...whatever!

*Sigh*...did I say he didn't flip-flop? I don't remember saying that.

What you said is that "Just like every other candidate, their supporters won't point out their flip-flops. So goes politics...I guess."
What I said was "Bob Barr was a staunch Neo-conservative until he turned Libertarian. Everyone who supports him knows this."

Meaning, we accept the fact that he longer follows Neoconservatism ideology. We don't deny that at one time he supported the war in Iraq or that he also supported the Patriot Act or that he was a big supporter of the "War on Drugs." He has not only flip flopped, but he's changed his entire political stance. He's become a Libertarian. Why would any politician become a Libertarian unless they truly believed in the poltical ideology of Libertarianism? If you can see some kind of political gain from this kind of move than you'll need to spell it out for me.

Didn't you ever hear the saying "most Americans truly educated in politics would be Libertarians." Let's face it, from what I've seen from you, you agree with many Libertarian philosophies whether you'll admit it or not. For some reason you just can't make that final step of calling yourself a Libertarian.

[BgMc31]

*Sigh*...did I say he didn't flip-flop? I don't remember saying that.

What you said is that "Just like every other candidate, their supporters won't point out their flip-flops. So goes politics...I guess."
What I said was "Bob Barr was a staunch Neo-conservative until he turned Libertarian. Everyone who supports him knows this."

Meaning, we accept the fact that he longer follows Neoconservatism ideology. We don't deny that at one time he supported the war in Iraq or that he also supported the Patriot Act or that he was a big supporter of the "War on Drugs." He has not only flip flopped, but he's changed his entire political stance. He's become a Libertarian. Why would any politician become a Libertarian unless they truly believed in the poltical ideology of Libertarianism? If you can see some kind of political gain from this kind of move than you'll need to spell it out for me.

Didn't you ever hear the saying "most Americans truly educated in politics would be Libertarians." Let's face it, from what I've seen from you, you agree with many Libertarian philosophies whether you'll admit it or not. For some reason you just can't make that final step of calling yourself a Libertarian.

Hahahahaha...you are right Blome, I am very interested in Libertarian stances BUT I also believe in taking care of the of less fortunate (to a point of course). So I don't completely subscribe to any one party philosophies whole-heartedly.

[byrdman]

well what about disarming America?
i mean whos he trying to disarm? the guy protecting his own house and kids?
do you guys think were going to be more safe to have obama take away the legal guns?
how are we suppost to shoot the robbers then?
theyll still have there guns
see he doesnt talk about stronger sentences cause that would be tearing down his people
I am not a racist but him saying that imo makes him

[BgMc31]

^^you might want to read up on Obama, you are way off in your assumptions.

[Tock]

I don't know much about Bob Barr, but what I do know doesn't impress me much. So . . . since the Republicans are so dead-set against equal rights and responsibility for gays (and cow-towing to religious-right mythology), and that's an important issue for me, Obama has my vote.

Economic issues are important also, but nobody's talking about the US national debt, and nobody's talking about reforming or replacing the IRS, and nobody's talking about fiscal responsibility, there's no way to tell which one is gonna do a better job.

On religious issues, both of 'em are trying to outdo each other with public displays of piety. You'd think we were electing a church pastor instead of an executive of the federal government.

I would have voted for Ron Paul, but this time it'll be Obama.

[byrdman]

^^you might want to read up on Obama, you are way off in your assumptions.

way off as in how? explain
and look im no mcain fan either
i just dont like way more things that obama has said
his own vp said mcain would be great for president

[thegodfather]

^^you might want to read up on Obama, you are way off in your assumptions.

Obama does support a FEDERAL(national) ban on Conceal&Carry permits for citizens. The inherent hypocrisy in that is frightening. Obama has security persons, who no doubt conceal&carry firearms. However, he would not afford that same protection he takes advantage of to the American people. He is an elitist in every sense of the word. CCW is ok for him, the annointed, but not for all of us "regular" citizens.

The 2nd Amendment is a HUGE issue for me. Unfortunately, neither Obama or McCain have shown a good record when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. McCain even appeases the gun grabbers. All other issues aside, neither one can have my vote because of this simple fact.

[BgMc31]

^^So supporting gun control makes one an elitist? That's absurd. I guess you haven't heard his quote of him saying that gun control in Montana is different than gun control in the southside of Chicago. As a man born down south and spent summers there (South Carolina), but also spent time in the inner city, there is a huge difference. So his position is based on his experience.

Please provide proof of his elitism.

[BgMc31]

well what about disarming America?
i mean whos he trying to disarm? the guy protecting his own house and kids?
do you guys think were going to be more safe to have obama take away the legal guns?
how are we suppost to shoot the robbers then?
theyll still have there guns
see he doesnt talk about stronger sentences cause that would be tearing down his people
I am not a racist but him saying that imo makes him

My statement above explains his position on gun control. Where did he oppose opposition to stricter sentencing using blacks as an excuse? Calling Obama a racist is ridiculous and more bs sent out by the right. Ridiculous!!!!!

[thegodfather]

^^So supporting gun control makes one an elitist? That's absurd. I guess you haven't heard his quote of him saying that gun control in Montana is different than gun control in the southside of Chicago. As a man born down south and spent summers there (South Carolina), but also spent time in the inner city, there is a huge difference. So his position is based on his experience.

Please provide proof of his elitism.

You cannot differentiate which section of the country can exercise their Constitutional rights and which sections cannot. What Obama proposes is to make inner city's "right restricted" areas, where law abiding citizens suffer under "gun control" laws which ONLY take guns out of law abiding citizens hands and NEVER out of criminals hands.

You must realise the equivalency here. It is tantamount to saying, people in Montana have a greater need for Free Speech than people in inner city's. Therefore, we're going to establish "free speech zones" where people in inner city's can and cannot speak freely, and in Montana people can speak freely wherever they please within the state.

All the while no one mentions that these states are free to enact their own laws, and wide ranging Federal mandates/laws on states were never meant by the founders. They knew that local decentralized government was best.

[BgMc31]

I not arguing the relevency of your argument in support of the 2nd amendment godfather. I'm questioning your assertion that Barack's opinion makes him an elitist.

The vast majority of those who support 2nd amendment rights with zero controls don't have the perspective of those who have spent any significant time in a high violent crime area. And while your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is absolute, Obama and those of like mind interpret the "...well armed militia" statement to mean something akin to the National Guard. I don't necessarily agree, but I see his point. Regardless, his position doesn't make him an elitist, and that is what I was arguing.

[thegodfather]

I not arguing the relevency of your argument in support of the 2nd amendment godfather. I'm questioning your assertion that Barack's opinion makes him an elitist.

The vast majority of those who support 2nd amendment rights with zero controls don't have the perspective of those who have spent any significant time in a high violent crime area. And while your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is absolute, Obama and those of like mind interpret the "...well armed militia" statement to mean something akin to the National Guard. I don't necessarily agree, but I see his point. Regardless, his position doesn't make him an elitist, and that is what I was arguing.

I live in Philadelphia, where there is at least one murder a day, and I live in the worst possible section of the city. It is BECAUSE of this that I see the need for the 2nd amendment to be absolute. Logic would dictate that people would have less of a "need" for firearms in the suburbs or rural low crime areas, and more of a "need" for personal firearm ownership in high crime areas where many of the criminals are already armed. Of course, liberal Democrats seldom use logic.

You claim that because of Obama's experience and people like him, they have a different perspective on th 2nd. Well their "perspective" flys in the face of all the statistic proving that states/areas where "Shall Issue" conceal&carry is instituted, have drastically lower violent crime rates (below the national averages). We need only look to England to see what an absolute ban on personal firearm ownership degrades into. England has never had higher violent crime rates than right now, and they had drastic increases after all firearms were banned.

[BgMc31]

Again godfather, I'm not arguing against your point, as it is a very valid one. But so is Obama's, whether you want to admit it or not. And there are many who subscribe to his belief just like there are those who believe as you do.

The point I was making is his position on this or any other topic doesn't make him an elitist, which is what you called him. I fail to see what you see in terms of his so-called elitism.

[Pooks]

If I decide to go Bob Barr over McCain come election time..

It will be because its gonna be a Protest vote more than anything else..

and hopefully by voting for the Libertarian candidate it will help the party grow in the future.

[thegodfather]

Again godfather, I'm not arguing against your point, as it is a very valid one. But so is Obama's, whether you want to admit it or not. And there are many who subscribe to his belief just like there are those who believe as you do.

The point I was making is his position on this or any other topic doesn't make him an elitist, which is what you called him. I fail to see what you see in terms of his so-called elitism.

It is elitist because he himself has armed bodyguards who conceal&carry a handgun. Many other Democrats who support gun control, such as Rosie O'Donnel, also have armed bodyguards who conceal&carry. That is elitist. To support a policy which denies the majority or "common folk" the right to have firearms, yet in the same breath say it is ok for you to have bodyguards with CCW permits because you 'need' them or are 'special.' The point is that EVERYONE has that same right to personal protection, and the majority of people are not exempt just because they are not involved in politics or have a shitty talk show.

[thegodfather]

My point...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rhuLnrrwJQ

AND THIS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlLdW...eature=related

[BgMc31]

It is elitist because he himself has armed bodyguards who conceal&carry a handgun. Many other Democrats who support gun control, such as Rosie O'Donnel, also have armed bodyguards who conceal&carry. That is elitist. To support a policy which denies the majority or "common folk" the right to have firearms, yet in the same breath say it is ok for you to have bodyguards with CCW permits because you 'need' them or are 'special.' The point is that EVERYONE has that same right to personal protection, and the majority of people are not exempt just because they are not involved in politics or have a shitty talk show.

I don't agree with your assertion that he's an elitist because he accepts secret service protection. Everyone does deserve equal protection. That's true. But saying he's elitist because he opposes CCW is like saying everyone who opposes abortion is pro-life. That's simply not true. Although in your heart of hearts the 2nd admendment is absolute, other's like Obama disagree. But it doesn't make him an elitist. Never has he said or even implied that he's better than everyone else and therefore deserves special protection and demands that government supply it. To me, if he ever said that, then that's elitism.

[thegodfather]

I don't agree with your assertion that he's an elitist because he accepts secret service protection. Everyone does deserve equal protection. That's true. But saying he's elitist because he opposes CCW is like saying everyone who opposes abortion is pro-life. That's simply not true. Although in your heart of hearts the 2nd admendment is absolute, other's like Obama disagree. But it doesn't make him an elitist. Never has he said or even implied that he's better than everyone else and therefore deserves special protection and demands that government supply it. To me, if he ever said that, then that's elitism.

Ok Bigmac...If what you say is true then I want Obama to lead by example...By his logic, if he imposes a national ban on conceal&carry, I'd like him to give up all armed protection. If other people are not entitled to it, then he shouldn't either. Also, all armed bodyguards should have their CCWs revoked as well and all celebrities and political figures can go without armed protection. My point is to exclude it for one portion of the population, but to allow it for another, is wrong, and its an elitist ideology.

Does someone have to say they are a racist for you to think of them as a racist?

[BgMc31]

^^He does have to lead by example but wasn't secret service protection heaped upon him? And wouldn't the secret service be exempt from any CCW ban? Police officers wouldn't have to relinquish their weapons under a CCW ban.

Don't get me wrong. I have a CCW and definitely would oppose a ban on them. But what I'm saying is his acceptance of secret service protection doesn't make him elitist, IMO. His extenuating circumstance requires that kind of protection. Can you imagine the threats Obama is getting? Much more than the average person. Does that mean he's entitled to protection other's are not? NO! But as a former bodyguard myself, there's a huge difference between hiring a bodyguard and having secret service assigned to you. Again, just my IMO.

Now, I do see your point clearly. I would say that Obama is a bit hypocetical than elitist when it comes to this argument. But he will still get my support because there are many other points of his that I agree with. His positive, IMO, far outweigh his negatives.

And while everybody is beating up on Obama and Biden for Biden's opposition to steroids , I find it awfully intriquing that no one has mentioned McCain's support of the Congressional hearings about steroids in baseball or his campaign to have MMA outlawed. I guess being a POW gets him a pass on these issues as well...

[Pooks]

Al Gore is my hero.. he preaches environmental awareness out of his 2mile per gallon metal plated Escalade.

[thegodfather]

^^He does have to lead by example but wasn't secret service protection heaped upon him? And wouldn't the secret service be exempt from any CCW ban? Police officers wouldn't have to relinquish their weapons under a CCW ban.

Don't get me wrong. I have a CCW and definitely would oppose a ban on them. But what I'm saying is his acceptance of secret service protection doesn't make him elitist, IMO. His extenuating circumstance requires that kind of protection. Can you imagine the threats Obama is getting? Much more than the average person. Does that mean he's entitled to protection other's are not? NO! But as a former bodyguard myself, there's a huge difference between hiring a bodyguard and having secret service assigned to you. Again, just my IMO.

Now, I do see your point clearly. I would say that Obama is a bit hypocetical than elitist when it comes to this argument. But he will still get my support because there are many other points of his that I agree with. His positive, IMO, far outweigh his negatives.

And while everybody is beating up on Obama and Biden for Biden's opposition to steroids , I find it awfully intriquing that no one has mentioned McCain's support of the Congressional hearings about steroids in baseball or his campaign to have MMA outlawed. I guess being a POW gets him a pass on these issues as well...

Dude he wasn't the topic of this thread...You know that I dont support him either and I'll rip apart his voting record and statements given the chance, in a thread where that is the topic. This thread was about Obama.

Extenuating circumstances? Every single law abiding citizen who lives in an inner city where violent crime is high has extenuating circumstances, I think every one of them should be assigned a secret service agent.

And, if we follow the European model of banning weapons, no the police officers will not have guns either. Only certain "task force" units in England have firearms. The average run of the mill police officer does not!

[byrdman]

check this out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m89m0pC_bpY

[Coop77]

For any Obama supporters out there, don't forget who his VP pick is:
http://www.steroid.com/video/#top (scroll down to the July 17th video titled "The Senator")

McCain is very anti steroid too. He also tried to outlaw MMA. You want a dickhead VP or a dickhead president?