FDA moves on prohormones

Discussion in 'Anything and Everything about dietary supplements' started by Bryan Haycock, Oct 7, 2004.

  1. xahrx

    xahrx New Member

    Why wouldn't they with such a polite young man proposing an alternative to them...

    Perhaps you might do well to read the backgroundof what some of those idiots believe. There's a reason why they wan't their guns, let's hope you never find out why. While I don't share their faith as I'm guessing you don't, I don't denegrate passionately held beliefs. It's a golden rule thing with me.
  2. [​IMG]2-->
    See this is why I do not discuss politics or religion with people that I have no clue as to what their background is. Some people make extremely broad blanketed statements that not only detract from the topic and distort the truth to fit their embodiment of what is right but also pull statements from some orifice of their their body that 1. Isn't necessarily stating factual ideas 2. Degrade people with any opposing view. So where does it leave us? An extremely seperated nation. Sad but true.
    By the way Jeff there are a trillion of people in this nation who you can color <span style='color:purple'>Purple</span>
  3. jeffw

    jeffw New Member

    Took the words right out of my mouth, Dan!

    <span style='color:purple'>I agree</span>, Dan. I think people really need to be reminded of that more.
  4. xahrx

    xahrx New Member

    I prefer not to color people. The money I was spending on crayons was astronomical.
  5. jeffw

    jeffw New Member

    Well, I don't want to speak for Dan but, heck, why not?

    I'd suspect he had Liquid Latex in mind. He's pretty practical that way. (No need to thank me, Dan.)

    As to whether he was referring to <span style='color:EE0000'>regular</span> or <span style='color:FF0099'>fluorescent</span> colors, I'd guess chacun à son goût, as the French say.

    Just a helpful &quot;budget tip,&quot; xahrx.

    (And I still haven't figured out how long it's going to take to color all those trillions of people<span style='color:000000'>!</span>)
  6. BoSox

    BoSox New Member

    right, because homophobia can be justified by any &quot;background?&quot;
  7. For such a young man you seem to have such a cynical outlook. I don't recall Xahrx mentioning any particular &quot;phobia&quot; and since I am in such an argumentative mood myself. What the F*** does homophobia have to with anyones political view. I will announce I am a Capitalist by nature which makes me lean a little to the right, but I am not homophobic nor do I even own a gun. Are you trying to say anyone who votes Republican is a homophobic gun slinger. This is my only issue with your posts, I truly like you a lot, but for someone so young you sure have the world pigeon holed which one day you will realise that not everything is as simple as black and white, more times than not they are merely varying shades of gray.
  8. Speak away my friend, speak away.

    As George senior said, &quot;A million points of light&quot; so I was off by a hundred million or so (so shoot me). I still love the way Dana Carvey says that BTW :D but I also love the Church Lady, so just <span style='color:green'>color</span> me weird.

    But yes, me do thinks Xahrx would easily run out of crayola if he tried coloring all those &quot;trillions&quot;.
  9. I agree with you that when it comes to economic issues what I have learned with my degree in finance tends to make me agree more so with the traditional republican views on such issues. The only problem is that Bush is not a republican by the traditional sense of the word. He hasn't rejected one government spending bill since being in office and has run up the deficit by an incredible amount. Obviously the wars also play a role in the deficit, but as polls have shown the majority of people in America view the decision to go to Iraq as a bad one so he can't be excused simply by that. It's just a shame to me that the Republican party couldn't have run any number of other more qualified candidates 4 years ago. Then I may have had a choice in my vote. IMHO Bush does not have the presence of mind to occupy the most important position in the world.
  10. If you believe that the American Presidency is the most important position in the world that one can occupy then I dare say you are a bit naive. I personally feel the <span style='color:red'>MOST IMPORTANT position in my world</span> is my parents and I hope now that my children are grown that they feel the same about me and my wife. It is our parents who gave us knowledge, hope, faith, confidence to face the new day and be the best we can be.
  11. xahrx

    xahrx New Member

    Yes. I know plenty of people of my ilk, meaning my political beliefs, that have some extreme opinions on the subject while at the same time acknowledging that the government has no business regulating such behavior. Some think this way because of religious reasons, some see it as an extension of hedonism which they disagree with in principle for whatever reason. Most see the wrongness of making laws against homosexuality. I personal don't care who does what to who and how, so long as it's consensual. People have been railing each other for years and the world has yet to explode because of it.

    While the legal decision on this issue is easy for me and most, their business is their business and mine is mine, no need for laws restricting anyoneon this issue, their are various social reason why some people are hesitant to acknowledge the due rights of homosexuals. For example many people are put off by what they see as an &quot;in your face&quot; attitude in gay politics.

    If you're referring to gay marriage I think the overall problem is the government has no business getting involved in what is essentially a religious matter, period. Gays are demanding special rights when demanding the right to marry, special rights that are already afforded to people who are straight. The answer is not to force states and religious institutions to accept that they don't want, but to pull the state out completely and allow anyone to have any kind of civil contract they want with anyone else, with whether or not the union is considered as a marriage left up to the churches. Some are very liberal and more than willing to marry gays, some aren't. That's life, and I'd say it's the right of private institutions to decide that for themselves.
  12. xahrx

    xahrx New Member

    I'm pretty sure he was referring to the supposed big role moral values played in the election, and this I think he rightly ties that to the various gay marriage debates, bans, etc., throughout the country.

    What he misses is that while it's wrong to deny gays the right to live as they see fit, it's also wrong force people to modify what is essentially a religious institution against their will. As an example I've got a friend who's a born again Christian, and I've nearly got him convinced that the answer is complete seperation of church and state, in that the government shouldn't be meddling in the issue of marriage at all, leaving the decision to be decided by each church as it sees fit, and only allowing generic civil unions for everyone for legal purposes such as transference of property and what not.
  13. I didn't mean that to offend you or any conservative for the matter. My personal opinion is just that there are a lot of more qualified candidates in the Republican party. As for the position comment, I believe, as many do, that the person most directly in charge of the largest economic and military power (a.k.a Prez of the U.S.) does hold the most important position in the world. I don't see how you could argue against that and to say that I'm naive and then bring some point about your parents that isn't really relevant to what I was saying is beyond me. Your parents or mine don't hold the power to place millions of people into war. The Prez does. Parents don't hold a single position that effects millions. If you want to talk about who's most important in your life then you could say your parents, but when talking about what singular position is most important in the world it's hard to argue that the Prez of the U.S. is not right up at the tops.
  14. It's funny how off track this topic got. Sorry to contribute to this. Maybe we should get the discussion back to prohormones.
  15. xahrx

    xahrx New Member

    I'd agree, but there's not much more to talk about there. I mean they're going to be illegal, that's not going to change. Periodically new substances that aren't on the list will be introduced and then subsequently added to the list. On goes the struggle for users of these substance to get the rest of the world to just leave us alone already.
  16. jeffw

    jeffw New Member

    Wait, let me just post this first before we go back on topic, since I just drafted it.

    That's actually a very interesting position, xahrx, and actually argued in this article which says, &quot;Legally speaking, the couple should be married by the state, separate from whatever marriage ceremony the couple may also choose to have, either before or after the legal certification of marriage by public officials…The separation of the marriage certificate from the marriage ceremony parallels the separation of the birth certificate from infant baptism and the separation of the death certificate from the funeral service.&quot;

    (You use &quot;marriage&quot; for the church ceremony and &quot;generic civil unions&quot; for the &quot;marriage certificate&quot;—and perhaps your nomenclature is clearer—but the idea is the same.)

    Forcing people to modify what essentially is a religious institution would indeed be wrong (and in the U.S. likely to be unconstitutional). The standard answer is that no religious group would be compelled to act against their religious beliefs and solemnize marriages between same-sex couples. (Separation of church and state in the U.S. should ideally protect both rights of the marrying couple and the rights of religious organizations that might object.) State requirements that a marriage ceremony—either religious or civil—solemnize the marriage blur the distinction between the marriage and the ceremony. Your solution would help eliminate the &quot;blurring&quot; or &quot;overlap&quot; of a civil and religious function which now occurs.
  17. No I am not offended, not at all. I also wouldn't call myself a conservative, not that you did. I do not share their beliefs, hell I'm agnostic [​IMG]

    Believe what you will, but the President isn't in charge of the most economic and military power in the world. Actually the House and Senate are. So when you speak of voting and who should or should not be elected these are your representatives not the president. Remember it takes an Act of Congress to sign a War Declaration. It takes the act of both the House and Senate to sign into law any economic policy.

    Lastly I agree that there are better candidates (BY Far) in the republican party that would provide better leadership than Bush, but unfortunately they weren't running. IMHO position the last Great President, who happened to be a Republican, was Ronald Reagan.

    Steroids (to sneak back on topic) should be a matter of choice, and if there were enough lobbiest behind them they would be. Unfortunately they do not have the same backing as Alcohol and Cigarettes, mucho grande dinero. :D
  18. jeffw

    jeffw New Member

    And whether steroids or prohormones or whatever actually do sneak back on topic at all is obviously a matter of choice also.

    So far they haven't made much of an appearance.


    But it has been an interesting, if discursive, thread…

    Punctuation check: Dan, did you mean

    <ul>the last Great President, who happened to be a Republican, was Ronald Reagan or

    the last Great President who happened to be a Republican was Ronald Reagan?[/list]
    Wait, on second thought, don't answer that!
  19. I don't mean to drag this out but I just wanted to clarify that I do fully understand the process. That's why I said the Prez was &quot;most directly in charge&quot; and not just &quot;in charge.&quot; The House and Senate are made up individuals which combined together possess a lot of power, but no single individual in them has anywhere close to the level of power or influence of the Prez.
  20. kid largo

    kid largo New Member

    I never said that. Point it out where I said that.

    I'm trying to define what American's actually believe freedom to be. Obviously you interpret it in the truest sense of the word. On that level, how can you say the American country has ever been free? Laws constrain our actions and have been in existence since the birth of both our countries. You've added some implicit logical constraint that counterpunches that statement, that you should be able to do whatever you please as long as it doesn't affect others..
    There are very few actions in this world that don't affect someone in one way or another and that is an undebateable universal truth.

    Stop trying to categorise everthing in black and white. Democracy with &quot;bans&quot; is not totalitarianism. How does freedom fit in with democracy? Look in the grey area.
    My question, that started this whole discussion, is directed at Americans exactly like you xarhx. Describe for me now, what your America would be like with the freedom that you're talking about. You'll find it is not realisable.

Share This Page