PDA

View Full Version : THEE NYG SWAG THREAD



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 [441] 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 10:01 AM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</p>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</p>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</p>


I thought it would be yesterday--my prediction is today also. I read in tagf(not sure of source) that the players did not see a copy of the final contract until 10pm last night? How could they be expected to vote on something they have not seen? If valid info, I get the players position.
</p>


Wouldn't that be the responsibility of their union leader?</p>

no. It wa sbased on the time the owners sent it out

which was late
That is such b.s. --owner's create the players voting delay--and try to make themselves look good. Typical.
i dont care, the players are the ones who started this whole thing. not to mention the owners have been pulling all nighters to get a deal ready. i could care less, just get the deal done so we can have football.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:02 AM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</p>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</p>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</p>


I thought it would be yesterday--my prediction is today also. I read in tagf(not sure of source) that the players did not see a copy of the final contract until 10pm last night? How could they be expected to vote on something they have not seen? If valid info, I get the players position.
</p>


Wouldn't that be the responsibility of their union leader?</p>

no. It wa sbased on the time the owners sent it out

which was late
That is such b.s. --owner's create the players voting delay--and try to make themselves look good. Typical.
i dont care, the players are the ones who started this whole thing. not to mention the owners have been pulling all nighters to get a deal ready. i could care less, just get the deal done so we can have football.


you realize its a lockout, not a strike right

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:03 AM
Stop reading Communist rags Matt and join the 21st century.</p>


</p>

typical republican

anything that disagrees with him is a communist... which is ironic

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 10:04 AM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</P>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</P>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</P>




i read they basically sent the same deal as last time. They didn't address nay of the major changes that held it up...

it seems like they tried to slip **** in and put it on the players for not being ready in time
</P>


Thats a load of crap. They had a handshake agreement with D Smith. The players are a bunch of children that need to be led by the hand by D Smith. And they will be.</P>


The deal was agreed upon after months of negotiations. The only things added by the teams were internal stuff between teams. All of which is designed to make sure each team can meet the 90% minimum agreed upon.</P>


Stop reading Communist rags Matt and join the 21st century.</P>


</P>




oh so the players agreed to it and are just pretending not to?

what would the point of that be

and i was reading updates from all outlets as it was going on


</P>


Not the players. .........D Smith. </P>


The only thing he didn't discuss with the teams was the revenue sharing plan between teams. All that is is an attempt to help the players get paid by all the teams with the minimum cap agreement.</P>


Has nothing to do with the players deal.</P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:07 AM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</p>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</p>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</p>




i read they basically sent the same deal as last time. They didn't address nay of the major changes that held it up...

it seems like they tried to slip **** in and put it on the players for not being ready in time
</p>


Thats a load of crap. They had a handshake agreement with D Smith. The players are a bunch of children that need to be led by the hand by D Smith. And they will be.</p>


The deal was agreed upon after months of negotiations. The only things added by the teams were internal stuff between teams. All of which is designed to make sure each team can meet the 90% minimum agreed upon.</p>


Stop reading Communist rags Matt and join the 21st century.</p>


</p>




oh so the players agreed to it and are just pretending not to?

what would the point of that be

and i was reading updates from all outlets as it was going on


</p>


Not the players. .........D Smith. </p>


The only thing he didn't discuss with the teams was the revenue sharing plan between teams. All that is is an attempt to help the players get paid by all the teams with the minimum cap agreement.</p>


Has nothing to do with the players deal.</p>

so again, he agreed to everything only to hold it up and pretend to disagree

or did he pretend to agree when he really disagreed

all solid points moorehead

http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/conspiracy.jpg

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 10:07 AM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</P>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</P>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</P>


I thought it would be yesterday--my prediction is today also. I read in tagf(not sure of source) that the players did not see a copy of the final contract until 10pm last night? How could they be expected to vote on something they have not seen? If valid info, I get the players position.
</P>


Wouldn't that be the responsibility of their union leader?</P>




no. It wa sbased on the time the owners sent it out

which was late
That is such b.s. --owner's create the players voting delay--and try to make themselves look good. Typical.
i dont care, the players are the ones who started this whole thing. not to mention the owners have been pulling all nighters to get a deal ready. i could care less, just get the deal done so we can have football.


you realize its a lockout, not a strike right
</P>


Yes the owners opted out. Which was negotiated in 2006.</P>


But the situation today is what matters. Nothing the owners passed yesterday was outside the agreement with D Smith. They also agreed on a plan to share revenues to protect small market teams. This is internal stuff. </P>


<FONT color=#ff0000 size=5>Pinko *******!!!!</FONT></P>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 10:08 AM
so awesome....</p>


I just helped a guy whos applying for a vehicle loan...
He's buying a 2012 Mustang Boss 302. And he's getting the Laguna Seca Model.
First off, they are only making 3000 of the Boss 302, and nobody knows if they are going to make them again next year or ever, AND only 300 of them are the Laguna Seca. So this is going to be a collector car basically. Kinda like how you don't see the Shelby GT500s that were made the past few years.
He says he's going to bring it back if the deal goes through so I can actually see one. So sick.</p>


Sounds sweet. I love cars. That stang is going to fly.
Not as sexy as a stang, but I'm looking at Big Suv's for the wife/kids right now. I built a Nissan Armada online last night. These things come with a 5.6 liter V8 pushing 317 hp. I hope Chevy gives me a deal on the tahoes...I love/prefer GM.
</p>


Armadas are HUUUUGE! I kinda like those actually. although not really my style.</p>They are nice. I considered Nissan because I had got my son a Pathfinder and it ran really well. I can't say anything bad about Nissan. I try to support US manufacturers with my vehicles-though.

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 10:09 AM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</P>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</P>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</P>




i read they basically sent the same deal as last time. They didn't address nay of the major changes that held it up...

it seems like they tried to slip **** in and put it on the players for not being ready in time
</P>


Thats a load of crap. They had a handshake agreement with D Smith. The players are a bunch of children that need to be led by the hand by D Smith. And they will be.</P>


The deal was agreed upon after months of negotiations. The only things added by the teams were internal stuff between teams. All of which is designed to make sure each team can meet the 90% minimum agreed upon.</P>


Stop reading Communist rags Matt and join the 21st century.</P>


</P>




oh so the players agreed to it and are just pretending not to?

what would the point of that be

and i was reading updates from all outlets as it was going on


</P>


Not the players. .........D Smith. </P>


The only thing he didn't discuss with the teams was the revenue sharing plan between teams. All that is is an attempt to help the players get paid by all the teams with the minimum cap agreement.</P>


Has nothing to do with the players deal.</P>




so again, he agreed to everything only to hold it up and pretend to disagree

or did he pretend to agree when he really disagreed

all solid points moorehead

http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/conspiracy.jpg
</P>


I have no problem with the players reviewing the revenue sharing plan. Its a 10 year deal. No reason to not make sure. But they will find nothing that has any negative effect on them.</P>


I would be surprised if they didn't approve it today. The sticking point is recertifying as a union. That might take a few days.</P>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 10:10 AM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</p>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</p>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</p>




i read they basically sent the same deal as last time. They didn't address nay of the major changes that held it up...

it seems like they tried to slip **** in and put it on the players for not being ready in time
</p>


Thats a load of crap. They had a handshake agreement with D Smith. The players are a bunch of children that need to be led by the hand by D Smith. And they will be.</p>


The deal was agreed upon after months of negotiations. The only things added by the teams were internal stuff between teams. All of which is designed to make sure each team can meet the 90% minimum agreed upon.</p>


Stop reading Communist rags Matt and join the 21st century.</p>


</p>




oh so the players agreed to it and are just pretending not to?

what would the point of that be

and i was reading updates from all outlets as it was going on


</p>


Not the players. .........D Smith. </p>


The only thing he didn't discuss with the teams was the revenue sharing plan between teams. All that is is an attempt to help the players get paid by all the teams with the minimum cap agreement.</p>


Has nothing to do with the players deal.</p>

so again, he agreed to everything only to hold it up and pretend to disagree

or did he pretend to agree when he really disagreed

all solid points moorehead

http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/conspiracy.jpg
This is sounding very political?

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:11 AM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</p>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</p>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</p>


I thought it would be yesterday--my prediction is today also. I read in tagf(not sure of source) that the players did not see a copy of the final contract until 10pm last night? How could they be expected to vote on something they have not seen? If valid info, I get the players position.
</p>


Wouldn't that be the responsibility of their union leader?</p>




no. It wa sbased on the time the owners sent it out

which was late
That is such b.s. --owner's create the players voting delay--and try to make themselves look good. Typical.
i dont care, the players are the ones who started this whole thing. not to mention the owners have been pulling all nighters to get a deal ready. i could care less, just get the deal done so we can have football.


you realize its a lockout, not a strike right
</p>


Yes the owners opted out. Which was negotiated in 2006.</p>


But the situation today is what matters. Nothing the owners passed yesterday was outside the agreement with D Smith. They also agreed on a plan to share revenues to protect small market teams. This is internal stuff. </p>


<font color="#ff0000" size="5">Pinko *******!!!!</font></p>

bottom line they tried changing things without mentioning. Whehter u think its small or not is not means nothing. Its just bad a bad way to approach business.

This could set things back a little bit if the changes were dramatic.

I dont mind the owners getting the bigger end of the stick, seeing as how they ate the last CBA - but also do it right. Be up front.

The players vote will be to accept it either way. These guys bluffed, players are living wtih parents, its sad lol

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 10:12 AM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</p>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</p>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</p>




i read they basically sent the same deal as last time. They didn't address nay of the major changes that held it up...

it seems like they tried to slip **** in and put it on the players for not being ready in time
</p>


Thats a load of crap. They had a handshake agreement with D Smith. The players are a bunch of children that need to be led by the hand by D Smith. And they will be.</p>


The deal was agreed upon after months of negotiations. The only things added by the teams were internal stuff between teams. All of which is designed to make sure each team can meet the 90% minimum agreed upon.</p>


Stop reading Communist rags Matt and join the 21st century.</p>


</p>




oh so the players agreed to it and are just pretending not to?

what would the point of that be

and i was reading updates from all outlets as it was going on


</p>


Not the players. .........D Smith. </p>


The only thing he didn't discuss with the teams was the revenue sharing plan between teams. All that is is an attempt to help the players get paid by all the teams with the minimum cap agreement.</p>


Has nothing to do with the players deal.</p>




so again, he agreed to everything only to hold it up and pretend to disagree

or did he pretend to agree when he really disagreed

all solid points moorehead

http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/conspiracy.jpg
</p>


I have no problem with the players reviewing the revenue sharing plan. Its a 10 year deal. No reason to not make sure. But they will find nothing that has any negative effect on them.</p>


I would be surprised if they didn't approve it today. The sticking point is recertifying as a union. That might take a few days.</p>Have you been able to find the process to recertify the union? All I know is they need a majority vote from the 1900 plus players--additional requirements-I am unaware of.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:13 AM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</p>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</p>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</p>




i read they basically sent the same deal as last time. They didn't address nay of the major changes that held it up...

it seems like they tried to slip **** in and put it on the players for not being ready in time
</p>


Thats a load of crap. They had a handshake agreement with D Smith. The players are a bunch of children that need to be led by the hand by D Smith. And they will be.</p>


The deal was agreed upon after months of negotiations. The only things added by the teams were internal stuff between teams. All of which is designed to make sure each team can meet the 90% minimum agreed upon.</p>


Stop reading Communist rags Matt and join the 21st century.</p>


</p>




oh so the players agreed to it and are just pretending not to?

what would the point of that be

and i was reading updates from all outlets as it was going on


</p>


Not the players. .........D Smith. </p>


The only thing he didn't discuss with the teams was the revenue sharing plan between teams. All that is is an attempt to help the players get paid by all the teams with the minimum cap agreement.</p>


Has nothing to do with the players deal.</p>




so again, he agreed to everything only to hold it up and pretend to disagree

or did he pretend to agree when he really disagreed

all solid points moorehead

http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/conspiracy.jpg
</p>


I have no problem with the players reviewing the revenue sharing plan. Its a 10 year deal. No reason to not make sure. But they will find nothing that has any negative effect on them.</p>


I would be surprised if they didn't approve it today. The sticking point is recertifying as a union. That might take a few days.</p>

oh you got a copy of everything and read it all?

Thats cool, i didn't realize they released it to the public.

But I mean you must of read it all first hand since your so sure of what it says, right?

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:14 AM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</p>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</p>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</p>




i read they basically sent the same deal as last time. They didn't address nay of the major changes that held it up...

it seems like they tried to slip **** in and put it on the players for not being ready in time
</p>


Thats a load of crap. They had a handshake agreement with D Smith. The players are a bunch of children that need to be led by the hand by D Smith. And they will be.</p>


The deal was agreed upon after months of negotiations. The only things added by the teams were internal stuff between teams. All of which is designed to make sure each team can meet the 90% minimum agreed upon.</p>


Stop reading Communist rags Matt and join the 21st century.</p>


</p>




oh so the players agreed to it and are just pretending not to?

what would the point of that be

and i was reading updates from all outlets as it was going on


</p>


Not the players. .........D Smith. </p>


The only thing he didn't discuss with the teams was the revenue sharing plan between teams. All that is is an attempt to help the players get paid by all the teams with the minimum cap agreement.</p>


Has nothing to do with the players deal.</p>




so again, he agreed to everything only to hold it up and pretend to disagree

or did he pretend to agree when he really disagreed

all solid points moorehead

http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/conspiracy.jpg
</p>


I have no problem with the players reviewing the revenue sharing plan. Its a 10 year deal. No reason to not make sure. But they will find nothing that has any negative effect on them.</p>


I would be surprised if they didn't approve it today. The sticking point is recertifying as a union. That might take a few days.</p>Have you been able to find the process to recertify the union? All I know is they need a majority vote from the 1900 plus players--additional requirements-I am unaware of.


some people may vote against it... but the majority is DEF going to vote for it lol. Its a no brainer. No football without it

They say Vincent Jackson drama is still legit. His demands may still be a problem

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 10:16 AM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</p>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</p>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</p>


I thought it would be yesterday--my prediction is today also. I read in tagf(not sure of source) that the players did not see a copy of the final contract until 10pm last night? How could they be expected to vote on something they have not seen? If valid info, I get the players position.
</p>


Wouldn't that be the responsibility of their union leader?</p>

no. It wa sbased on the time the owners sent it out

which was late
That is such b.s. --owner's create the players voting delay--and try to make themselves look good. Typical.
i dont care, the players are the ones who started this whole thing. not to mention the owners have been pulling all nighters to get a deal ready. i could care less, just get the deal done so we can have football.


you realize its a lockout, not a strike right
what does that have to do with anything i said? the players still started this whole mess cause theyre being greedy.

bigblue4417
07-22-2011, 10:19 AM
did u guys know Ruud was only 28?

I thought he was older in his 30s

kind of changes my opinion of possible signing him
Yea, but Ruud was franchised before the lockout, who knows if that will still be valid or not, but point is, he'll get alot of cash. I think we need to start clearin out some vets. Just a couple examples: Trade osi, give Beatty the LT job, cut Ohara and andrews(this is obvious) let Bradshaw walk and sign a guy like brown to a 1yr deal, let cofield walk and Steve smith. All of a sudden we have ample cap room next year and probably two extra 3rd round picks from compensatory picks, plus probably something like Osi and a 4th rder for some teams 1st rounder. I really want our team building to start going the way of the pats and eagles. They always have extra picks, cap space and field a competitive team</p>


After all your name calling aimed at me about me wanting to get rid of Osi, now you say we should trade him?</p>


What the hell, Lawl!!</p>Yah Lawl what the he'll, doncha know? MH is the only one allowed to name call for having an opinion.. ;)Is the argument over FF bench seats over yet?
Don't know, I guess it'll depend on whether they woke up on the wrong side of the bed.. Separate beds of course, I think.

i woke up and caught lando trying to take my pants off

weird morning

Actually I was putting them back on.

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 10:19 AM
Tonight is the night.</P>


Taking T shirt orders. How many do each of you want and what sizes?</P>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/003-1.jpg?t=1311344283</P>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/th_004-2-1.jpg (http://s237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/?action=view&amp;current=004-2-1.jpg)</P>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 10:20 AM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</p>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</p>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</p>




i read they basically sent the same deal as last time. They didn't address nay of the major changes that held it up...

it seems like they tried to slip **** in and put it on the players for not being ready in time
</p>


Thats a load of crap. They had a handshake agreement with D Smith. The players are a bunch of children that need to be led by the hand by D Smith. And they will be.</p>


The deal was agreed upon after months of negotiations. The only things added by the teams were internal stuff between teams. All of which is designed to make sure each team can meet the 90% minimum agreed upon.</p>


Stop reading Communist rags Matt and join the 21st century.</p>


</p>




oh so the players agreed to it and are just pretending not to?

what would the point of that be

and i was reading updates from all outlets as it was going on


</p>


Not the players. .........D Smith. </p>


The only thing he didn't discuss with the teams was the revenue sharing plan between teams. All that is is an attempt to help the players get paid by all the teams with the minimum cap agreement.</p>


Has nothing to do with the players deal.</p>




so again, he agreed to everything only to hold it up and pretend to disagree

or did he pretend to agree when he really disagreed

all solid points moorehead

http://skepticalteacher.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/conspiracy.jpg
</p>


I have no problem with the players reviewing the revenue sharing plan. Its a 10 year deal. No reason to not make sure. But they will find nothing that has any negative effect on them.</p>


I would be surprised if they didn't approve it today. The sticking point is recertifying as a union. That might take a few days.</p>Have you been able to find the process to recertify the union? All I know is they need a majority vote from the 1900 plus players--additional requirements-I am unaware of.


some people may vote against it... but the majority is DEF going to vote for it lol. Its a no brainer. No football without it

They say Vincent Jackson drama is still legit. His demands may still be a problem
Exactly, it comes down to the players wanting to play ball or not. The majority will vote in favor. I just don't want any additional delay for however long it takes to recertify.

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 10:21 AM
Tonight is the night.</p>


Taking T shirt orders. How many do each of you want and what sizes?</p>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/003-1.jpg?t=1311344283</p>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/th_004-2-1.jpg (http://s237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/?action=view&amp;current=004-2-1.jpg)</p>XXL--I'll pay you at THEE Game.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:22 AM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</p>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</p>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</p>


I thought it would be yesterday--my prediction is today also. I read in tagf(not sure of source) that the players did not see a copy of the final contract until 10pm last night? How could they be expected to vote on something they have not seen? If valid info, I get the players position.
</p>


Wouldn't that be the responsibility of their union leader?</p>

no. It wa sbased on the time the owners sent it out

which was late
That is such b.s. --owner's create the players voting delay--and try to make themselves look good. Typical.
i dont care, the players are the ones who started this whole thing. not to mention the owners have been pulling all nighters to get a deal ready. i could care less, just get the deal done so we can have football.


you realize its a lockout, not a strike right
what does that have to do with anything i said? the players still started this whole mess cause theyre being greedy.


did u come to that conclusion before or after the league tried stuffing 9 billlion dollars under their bed

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:22 AM
did u guys know Ruud was only 28?

I thought he was older in his 30s

kind of changes my opinion of possible signing him
Yea, but Ruud was franchised before the lockout, who knows if that will still be valid or not, but point is, he'll get alot of cash. I think we need to start clearin out some vets. Just a couple examples: Trade osi, give Beatty the LT job, cut Ohara and andrews(this is obvious) let Bradshaw walk and sign a guy like brown to a 1yr deal, let cofield walk and Steve smith. All of a sudden we have ample cap room next year and probably two extra 3rd round picks from compensatory picks, plus probably something like Osi and a 4th rder for some teams 1st rounder. I really want our team building to start going the way of the pats and eagles. They always have extra picks, cap space and field a competitive team</p>


After all your name calling aimed at me about me wanting to get rid of Osi, now you say we should trade him?</p>


What the hell, Lawl!!</p>Yah Lawl what the he'll, doncha know? MH is the only one allowed to name call for having an opinion.. ;)Is the argument over FF bench seats over yet?
Don't know, I guess it'll depend on whether they woke up on the wrong side of the bed.. Separate beds of course, I think.

i woke up and caught lando trying to take my pants off

weird morning

Actually I was putting them back on.


LMAO

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 10:22 AM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</P>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</P>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</P>


I thought it would be yesterday--my prediction is today also. I read in tagf(not sure of source) that the players did not see a copy of the final contract until 10pm last night? How could they be expected to vote on something they have not seen? If valid info, I get the players position.
</P>


Wouldn't that be the responsibility of their union leader?</P>




no. It wa sbased on the time the owners sent it out

which was late
That is such b.s. --owner's create the players voting delay--and try to make themselves look good. Typical.
i dont care, the players are the ones who started this whole thing. not to mention the owners have been pulling all nighters to get a deal ready. i could care less, just get the deal done so we can have football.


you realize its a lockout, not a strike right
</P>


Yes the owners opted out. Which was negotiated in 2006.</P>


But the situation today is what matters. Nothing the owners passed yesterday was outside the agreement with D Smith. They also agreed on a plan to share revenues to protect small market teams. This is internal stuff. </P>


<FONT color=#ff0000 size=5>Pinko *******!!!!</FONT></P>




bottom line they tried changing things without mentioning. Whehter u think its small or not is not means nothing. Its just bad a bad way to approach business.

This could set things back a little bit if the changes were dramatic.

I dont mind the owners getting the bigger end of the stick, seeing as how they ate the last CBA - but also do it right. Be up front.

The players vote will be to accept it either way. These guys bluffed, players are living wtih parents, its sad lol
</P>


Repectfully Matt, you have been misinformed. There was nothing changed on the agreed upon points. Not one thing. All they did was agree on other things as well that have nothing to do with the players deal.</P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:23 AM
Tonight is the night.</p>


Taking T shirt orders. How many do each of you want and what sizes?</p>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/003-1.jpg?t=1311344283</p>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/th_004-2-1.jpg (http://s237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/?action=view&amp;current=004-2-1.jpg)</p>

2X - and i really want one

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:23 AM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</p>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</p>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</p>


I thought it would be yesterday--my prediction is today also. I read in tagf(not sure of source) that the players did not see a copy of the final contract until 10pm last night? How could they be expected to vote on something they have not seen? If valid info, I get the players position.
</p>


Wouldn't that be the responsibility of their union leader?</p>




no. It wa sbased on the time the owners sent it out

which was late
That is such b.s. --owner's create the players voting delay--and try to make themselves look good. Typical.
i dont care, the players are the ones who started this whole thing. not to mention the owners have been pulling all nighters to get a deal ready. i could care less, just get the deal done so we can have football.


you realize its a lockout, not a strike right
</p>


Yes the owners opted out. Which was negotiated in 2006.</p>


But the situation today is what matters. Nothing the owners passed yesterday was outside the agreement with D Smith. They also agreed on a plan to share revenues to protect small market teams. This is internal stuff. </p>


<font color="#ff0000" size="5">Pinko *******!!!!</font></p>




bottom line they tried changing things without mentioning. Whehter u think its small or not is not means nothing. Its just bad a bad way to approach business.

This could set things back a little bit if the changes were dramatic.

I dont mind the owners getting the bigger end of the stick, seeing as how they ate the last CBA - but also do it right. Be up front.

The players vote will be to accept it either way. These guys bluffed, players are living wtih parents, its sad lol
</p>


Repectfully Matt, you have been misinformed. There was nothing changed on the agreed upon points. Not one thing. All they did was agree on other things as well that have nothing to do with the players deal.</p>

thats not what I was reading as of 9pm last night

JPizzack
07-22-2011, 10:25 AM
Tonight is the night.</P>


Taking T shirt orders. How many do each of you want and what sizes?</P>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/003-1.jpg?t=1311344283</P>


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/th_004-2-1.jpg (http://s237.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/cazaman15/?action=view&amp;current=004-2-1.jpg)</P>


</P>


I cant see your finished product =\</P>

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 10:25 AM
did u guys know Ruud was only 28?

I thought he was older in his 30s

kind of changes my opinion of possible signing him
Yea, but Ruud was franchised before the lockout, who knows if that will still be valid or not, but point is, he'll get alot of cash. I think we need to start clearin out some vets. Just a couple examples: Trade osi, give Beatty the LT job, cut Ohara and andrews(this is obvious) let Bradshaw walk and sign a guy like brown to a 1yr deal, let cofield walk and Steve smith. All of a sudden we have ample cap room next year and probably two extra 3rd round picks from compensatory picks, plus probably something like Osi and a 4th rder for some teams 1st rounder. I really want our team building to start going the way of the pats and eagles. They always have extra picks, cap space and field a competitive team</P>


After all your name calling aimed at me about me wanting to get rid of Osi, now you say we should trade him?</P>


What the hell, Lawl!!</P>


Yah Lawl what the he'll, doncha know? MH is the only one allowed to name call for having an opinion.. ;)Is the argument over FF bench seats over yet?
Don't know, I guess it'll depend on whether they woke up on the wrong side of the bed.. Separate beds of course, I think.

i woke up and caught lando trying to take my pants off

weird morning

Actually I was putting them back on.


LMAO
</P>


Was there any strange, unaccounted for leakage, when you woke up Matt?</P>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 10:25 AM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</p>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</p>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</p>


I thought it would be yesterday--my prediction is today also. I read in tagf(not sure of source) that the players did not see a copy of the final contract until 10pm last night? How could they be expected to vote on something they have not seen? If valid info, I get the players position.
</p>


Wouldn't that be the responsibility of their union leader?</p>




no. It wa sbased on the time the owners sent it out

which was late
That is such b.s. --owner's create the players voting delay--and try to make themselves look good. Typical.
i dont care, the players are the ones who started this whole thing. not to mention the owners have been pulling all nighters to get a deal ready. i could care less, just get the deal done so we can have football.


you realize its a lockout, not a strike right
</p>


Yes the owners opted out. Which was negotiated in 2006.</p>


But the situation today is what matters. Nothing the owners passed yesterday was outside the agreement with D Smith. They also agreed on a plan to share revenues to protect small market teams. This is internal stuff. </p>


<font color="#ff0000" size="5">Pinko *******!!!!</font></p>




bottom line they tried changing things without mentioning. Whehter u think its small or not is not means nothing. Its just bad a bad way to approach business.

This could set things back a little bit if the changes were dramatic.

I dont mind the owners getting the bigger end of the stick, seeing as how they ate the last CBA - but also do it right. Be up front.

The players vote will be to accept it either way. These guys bluffed, players are living wtih parents, its sad lol
</p>


Repectfully Matt, you have been misinformed. There was nothing changed on the agreed upon points. Not one thing. All they did was agree on other things as well that have nothing to do with the players deal.</p>In order for the owners to be properly protected, the union must re-certify. The players know this....let's get er done. I can't wait to read the headline that this is over.

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 10:26 AM
did u guys know Ruud was only 28?

I thought he was older in his 30s

kind of changes my opinion of possible signing him
Yea, but Ruud was franchised before the lockout, who knows if that will still be valid or not, but point is, he'll get alot of cash. I think we need to start clearin out some vets. Just a couple examples: Trade osi, give Beatty the LT job, cut Ohara and andrews(this is obvious) let Bradshaw walk and sign a guy like brown to a 1yr deal, let cofield walk and Steve smith. All of a sudden we have ample cap room next year and probably two extra 3rd round picks from compensatory picks, plus probably something like Osi and a 4th rder for some teams 1st rounder. I really want our team building to start going the way of the pats and eagles. They always have extra picks, cap space and field a competitive team</p>


After all your name calling aimed at me about me wanting to get rid of Osi, now you say we should trade him?</p>


What the hell, Lawl!!</p>


Yah Lawl what the he'll, doncha know? MH is the only one allowed to name call for having an opinion.. ;)Is the argument over FF bench seats over yet?
Don't know, I guess it'll depend on whether they woke up on the wrong side of the bed.. Separate beds of course, I think.

i woke up and caught lando trying to take my pants off

weird morning

Actually I was putting them back on.


LMAO
</p>


Was there any strange, unaccounted for leakage, when you woke up Matt?</p>My reocmmendation is to get a dna test kit

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 10:28 AM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</P>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</P>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</P>


I thought it would be yesterday--my prediction is today also. I read in tagf(not sure of source) that the players did not see a copy of the final contract until 10pm last night? How could they be expected to vote on something they have not seen? If valid info, I get the players position.
</P>


Wouldn't that be the responsibility of their union leader?</P>




no. It wa sbased on the time the owners sent it out

which was late
That is such b.s. --owner's create the players voting delay--and try to make themselves look good. Typical.
i dont care, the players are the ones who started this whole thing. not to mention the owners have been pulling all nighters to get a deal ready. i could care less, just get the deal done so we can have football.


you realize its a lockout, not a strike right
</P>


Yes the owners opted out. Which was negotiated in 2006.</P>


But the situation today is what matters. Nothing the owners passed yesterday was outside the agreement with D Smith. They also agreed on a plan to share revenues to protect small market teams. This is internal stuff. </P>


<FONT color=#ff0000 size=5>Pinko *******!!!!</FONT></P>




bottom line they tried changing things without mentioning. Whehter u think its small or not is not means nothing. Its just bad a bad way to approach business.

This could set things back a little bit if the changes were dramatic.

I dont mind the owners getting the bigger end of the stick, seeing as how they ate the last CBA - but also do it right. Be up front.

The players vote will be to accept it either way. These guys bluffed, players are living wtih parents, its sad lol
</P>


Repectfully Matt, you have been misinformed. There was nothing changed on the agreed upon points. Not one thing. All they did was agree on other things as well that have nothing to do with the players deal.</P>




thats not what I was reading as of 9pm last night
</P>


Again Matt......misinformed. </P>


There were analyst after analyst this morning saying that that was absolutelt false. It was nothing but internal stuff with the owners.</P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:30 AM
did u guys know Ruud was only 28?

I thought he was older in his 30s

kind of changes my opinion of possible signing him
Yea, but Ruud was franchised before the lockout, who knows if that will still be valid or not, but point is, he'll get alot of cash. I think we need to start clearin out some vets. Just a couple examples: Trade osi, give Beatty the LT job, cut Ohara and andrews(this is obvious) let Bradshaw walk and sign a guy like brown to a 1yr deal, let cofield walk and Steve smith. All of a sudden we have ample cap room next year and probably two extra 3rd round picks from compensatory picks, plus probably something like Osi and a 4th rder for some teams 1st rounder. I really want our team building to start going the way of the pats and eagles. They always have extra picks, cap space and field a competitive team</p>


After all your name calling aimed at me about me wanting to get rid of Osi, now you say we should trade him?</p>


What the hell, Lawl!!</p>


Yah Lawl what the he'll, doncha know? MH is the only one allowed to name call for having an opinion.. ;)Is the argument over FF bench seats over yet?
Don't know, I guess it'll depend on whether they woke up on the wrong side of the bed.. Separate beds of course, I think.

i woke up and caught lando trying to take my pants off

weird morning

Actually I was putting them back on.


LMAO
</p>


Was there any strange, unaccounted for leakage, when you woke up Matt?</p>

define strange....



and unaccounted

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 10:31 AM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</p>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</p>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</p>


I thought it would be yesterday--my prediction is today also. I read in tagf(not sure of source) that the players did not see a copy of the final contract until 10pm last night? How could they be expected to vote on something they have not seen? If valid info, I get the players position.
</p>


Wouldn't that be the responsibility of their union leader?</p>

no. It wa sbased on the time the owners sent it out

which was late
That is such b.s. --owner's create the players voting delay--and try to make themselves look good. Typical.
i dont care, the players are the ones who started this whole thing. not to mention the owners have been pulling all nighters to get a deal ready. i could care less, just get the deal done so we can have football.


you realize its a lockout, not a strike right
what does that have to do with anything i said? the players still started this whole mess cause theyre being greedy.


did u come to that conclusion before or after the league tried stuffing 9 billlion dollars under their bed
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:31 AM
Again Matt......misinformed. </p>


There were analyst after analyst this morning saying that that was absolutelt false. It was nothing but internal stuff with the owners.</p>

what was internal stuff with the owners?

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:32 AM
Garafolo says that he doesn't think Bradshaw is a Giant this year

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 10:33 AM
did u guys know Ruud was only 28?

I thought he was older in his 30s

kind of changes my opinion of possible signing him
Yea, but Ruud was franchised before the lockout, who knows if that will still be valid or not, but point is, he'll get alot of cash. I think we need to start clearin out some vets. Just a couple examples: Trade osi, give Beatty the LT job, cut Ohara and andrews(this is obvious) let Bradshaw walk and sign a guy like brown to a 1yr deal, let cofield walk and Steve smith. All of a sudden we have ample cap room next year and probably two extra 3rd round picks from compensatory picks, plus probably something like Osi and a 4th rder for some teams 1st rounder. I really want our team building to start going the way of the pats and eagles. They always have extra picks, cap space and field a competitive team</p>


After all your name calling aimed at me about me wanting to get rid of Osi, now you say we should trade him?</p>


What the hell, Lawl!!</p>


Yah Lawl what the he'll, doncha know? MH is the only one allowed to name call for having an opinion.. ;)Is the argument over FF bench seats over yet?
Don't know, I guess it'll depend on whether they woke up on the wrong side of the bed.. Separate beds of course, I think.

i woke up and caught lando trying to take my pants off

weird morning

Actually I was putting them back on.


LMAO
</p>


Was there any strange, unaccounted for leakage, when you woke up Matt?</p>thats probably the grossest thing you ever said. lol
what a horrible image.

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 10:33 AM
Garafolo says that he doesn't think Bradshaw is a Giant this year
noooo

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 10:35 AM
Again Matt......misinformed. </P>


There were analyst after analyst this morning saying that that was absolutelt false. It was nothing but internal stuff with the owners.</P>




what was internal stuff with the owners?
</P>


They came to an agreement to share revenues for those small market teams who are having problems meeting the 90% minumum.</P>


That 90% minimum is a huge deal for the players. Absolutely huge. The owners needed to figure out how to make sure all teams can make that kind of payroll.</P>


Right now (the old CBA) the minumum was (I believe) somewhere in the 60% area. (or in the 60's)</P>


Now teams can't rebuild and cut payroll. I actually think thats a tough deal for some of the small market clubs, thats why they had to have a new revenue sharing plan.</P>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 10:36 AM
Baywatch got nothing on this chick--I'd wax that rack 7 times right.

http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/bouncy_model.gif?w=338&amp;h=374

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:36 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 10:37 AM
did u guys know Ruud was only 28?

I thought he was older in his 30s

kind of changes my opinion of possible signing him
Yea, but Ruud was franchised before the lockout, who knows if that will still be valid or not, but point is, he'll get alot of cash. I think we need to start clearin out some vets. Just a couple examples: Trade osi, give Beatty the LT job, cut Ohara and andrews(this is obvious) let Bradshaw walk and sign a guy like brown to a 1yr deal, let cofield walk and Steve smith. All of a sudden we have ample cap room next year and probably two extra 3rd round picks from compensatory picks, plus probably something like Osi and a 4th rder for some teams 1st rounder. I really want our team building to start going the way of the pats and eagles. They always have extra picks, cap space and field a competitive team</P>


After all your name calling aimed at me about me wanting to get rid of Osi, now you say we should trade him?</P>


What the hell, Lawl!!</P>


Yah Lawl what the he'll, doncha know? MH is the only one allowed to name call for having an opinion.. ;)Is the argument over FF bench seats over yet?
Don't know, I guess it'll depend on whether they woke up on the wrong side of the bed.. Separate beds of course, I think.

i woke up and caught lando trying to take my pants off

weird morning

Actually I was putting them back on.


LMAO
</P>


Was there any strange, unaccounted for leakage, when you woke up Matt?</P>




define strange....



and unaccounted
</P>


Well I guess it would only be strange and unaccountable to me. I'm sure a guy like you who has no problem "experimenting" would not find it so strange.</P>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 10:37 AM
Garafolo says that he doesn't think Bradshaw is a Giant this year
nooooOh nooooo, who will drop the rock all over the field for us?

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:38 AM
Garafolo says that he doesn't think Bradshaw is a Giant this year
noooo

my tweet: hey did u get a feel on what bradshaw asking will be? I heard a deal like jacobs. Almost impossible for us

his tweet: yeain that range . But with a lower salary cap and a deep FA class, does he get it? Doubt Giants will offer it.

ny06
07-22-2011, 10:39 AM
Garafolo says that he doesn't think Bradshaw is a Giant this year
</P>


Untill I see Bradshaw sign a contract with another team it's all speculation. </P>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 10:39 AM
did u guys know Ruud was only 28?

I thought he was older in his 30s

kind of changes my opinion of possible signing him
Yea, but Ruud was franchised before the lockout, who knows if that will still be valid or not, but point is, he'll get alot of cash. I think we need to start clearin out some vets. Just a couple examples: Trade osi, give Beatty the LT job, cut Ohara and andrews(this is obvious) let Bradshaw walk and sign a guy like brown to a 1yr deal, let cofield walk and Steve smith. All of a sudden we have ample cap room next year and probably two extra 3rd round picks from compensatory picks, plus probably something like Osi and a 4th rder for some teams 1st rounder. I really want our team building to start going the way of the pats and eagles. They always have extra picks, cap space and field a competitive team</p>


After all your name calling aimed at me about me wanting to get rid of Osi, now you say we should trade him?</p>


What the hell, Lawl!!</p>


Yah Lawl what the he'll, doncha know? MH is the only one allowed to name call for having an opinion.. ;)Is the argument over FF bench seats over yet?
Don't know, I guess it'll depend on whether they woke up on the wrong side of the bed.. Separate beds of course, I think.

i woke up and caught lando trying to take my pants off

weird morning

Actually I was putting them back on.


LMAO
</p>


Was there any strange, unaccounted for leakage, when you woke up Matt?</p>




define strange....



and unaccounted
</p>


Well I guess it would only be strange and unaccountable to me. I'm sure a guy like you who has no problem "experimenting" would not find it so strange.</p>that made me uncomfortable lol [:$]

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 10:40 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</P>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</P>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</P>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:41 AM
Well I guess it would only be strange and unaccountable to me. I'm sure a guy like you who has no problem "experimenting" would not find it so strange.</p>

lol

JPizzack
07-22-2011, 10:41 AM
Garafolo says that he doesn't think Bradshaw is a Giant this year
nooooOh nooooo, who will drop the rock all over the field for us?
</P>


i lol'd</P>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 10:42 AM
http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/3.gif?w=320&amp;h=180

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 10:42 AM
Garafolo says that he doesn't think Bradshaw is a Giant this year
nooooOh nooooo, who will drop the rock all over the field for us?
maybe dj ware

all hbs fumble, lets stop this. remember adrian peterson in the playoffs 2 years ago?

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:43 AM
Garafolo says that he doesn't think Bradshaw is a Giant this year
</p>


Untill I see Bradshaw sign a contract with another team it's all speculation. </p>

he just doesn't think that the Giants will offer what he'll get somewhere else

and theres plenty of talent in the RB FA class this year

i have to kind of agree with him

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:45 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</p>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</p>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</p>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</p>

i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs. They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:46 AM
http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/3.gif?w=320&amp;h=180

i wish he got his skull kicked in while he was doing that shimmy

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 10:46 AM
Garafolo says that he doesn't think Bradshaw is a Giant this year
nooooOh nooooo, who will drop the rock all over the field for us?
maybe dj ware

all hbs fumble, lets stop this. remember adrian peterson in the playoffs 2 years ago?
Peterson is a ****ing beast

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:46 AM
http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/3.gif?w=320&amp;h=180

i wish he got his skull kicked in while he was doing that shimmy

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:48 AM
Garafolo says that he doesn't think Bradshaw is a Giant this year
nooooOh nooooo, who will drop the rock all over the field for us?
maybe dj ware

all hbs fumble, lets stop this. remember adrian peterson in the playoffs 2 years ago?


it is true though

we could have the same success with somebody maybe not as good but holds the rock better

my one fear about bradshaw is that his elusiveness is connected with his lack of ball security

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 10:48 AM
http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/3.gif?w=320&amp;h=180

i wish he got his skull kicked in while he was doing that shimmy
Shimmy, shimmy coco-puffs-disrespectful, no doubt. pretty gay, just sayin.

JPizzack
07-22-2011, 10:49 AM
Garafolo says that he doesn't think Bradshaw is a Giant this year
</P>


Untill I see Bradshaw sign a contract with another team it's all speculation. </P>




he just doesn't think that the Giants will offer what he'll get somewhere else

and theres plenty of talent in the RB FA class this year

i have to kind of agree with him
</P>


I've always said RBs are replaceable. And it's not something that can really be argued. I mean look at guys like Arian Foster, Danny Woodhead, Peyton Hillis....
just a matter of finding the right piece basically. I wouldn't be too worried about this.
lol, it's hard to get attached to RBs!!</P>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 10:50 AM
Garafolo says that he doesn't think Bradshaw is a Giant this year
nooooOh nooooo, who will drop the rock all over the field for us?
maybe dj ware

all hbs fumble, lets stop this. remember adrian peterson in the playoffs 2 years ago?


it is true though

we could have the same success with somebody maybe not as good but holds the rock better

my one fear about bradshaw is that his elusiveness is connected with his lack of ball security
His form has been questioned. He uses his arms to maintain his balance when making his cuts. Tiki corrected his fumble issues--AB should be able to as well.

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 10:51 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</P>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</P>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</P>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</P>




i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs. They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.
</P>


Most of the "rich" pay over 50% of their income in taxes between fed and state. There comes a point when they stop investing because of diminishing return. This is simple economic fact.</P>


I have no problem eliminating all deductions and lowering rates so they can't hire tax accountants to get them out of paying their fair share. But the lowering of rates is key to economic growth, which creates jobs and prosperity. Every investment is taxed at your highest rate. Lowering rates will incentivize investment (there's 2 trillion on the sidelines, why do you think that is?) and with the elimination of deductions, they will still pay.</P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:51 AM
Garafolo says that he doesn't think Bradshaw is a Giant this year
</p>


Untill I see Bradshaw sign a contract with another team it's all speculation. </p>




he just doesn't think that the Giants will offer what he'll get somewhere else

and theres plenty of talent in the RB FA class this year

i have to kind of agree with him
</p>


I've always said RBs are replaceable. And it's not something that can really be argued. I mean look at guys like Arian Foster, Danny Woodhead, Peyton Hillis....
just a matter of finding the right piece basically. I wouldn't be too worried about this.
lol, it's hard to get attached to RBs!!</p>

well what makes it hard is that u don't see how sick he actually is

ur blind *****

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:52 AM
Garafolo says that he doesn't think Bradshaw is a Giant this year
nooooOh nooooo, who will drop the rock all over the field for us?
maybe dj ware

all hbs fumble, lets stop this. remember adrian peterson in the playoffs 2 years ago?


it is true though

we could have the same success with somebody maybe not as good but holds the rock better

my one fear about bradshaw is that his elusiveness is connected with his lack of ball security
His form has been questioned. He uses his arms to maintain his balance when making his cuts. Tiki corrected his fumble issues--AB should be able to as well.


yea but Bradshaw is so much quicker and explosive than Tiki was. Diff runners

ny06
07-22-2011, 10:52 AM
http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/3.gif?w=320&amp;h=180

i wish he got his skull kicked in while he was doing that shimmy
</P>


The second he did that dance I would implant my fist into his face...</P>


</P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:54 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</p>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</p>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</p>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</p>




i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs. They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.
</p>


Most of the "rich" pay over 50% of their income in taxes between fed and state. There comes a point when they stop investing because of diminishing return. This is simple economic fact.</p>


I have no problem eliminating all deductions and lowering rates so they can't hire tax accountants to get them out of paying their fair share. But the lowering of rates is key to economic growth, which creates jobs and prosperity. Every investment is taxed at your highest rate. Lowering rates will incentivize investment (there's 2 trillion on the sidelines, why do you think that is?) and with the elimination of deductions, they will still pay.</p>

Theres definitly a stalemate, because with all the outsourcing theres no way to justify giving them these breaks.

Are we suppose to go on scouts honor of business men?

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 10:54 AM
http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/3.gif?w=320&amp;h=180

i wish he got his skull kicked in while he was doing that shimmy
</p>


The second he did that dance I would implant my fist into his face...</p>


</p>

he must be good, the dude seems timid

JPizzack
07-22-2011, 10:58 AM
Garafolo says that he doesn't think Bradshaw is a Giant this year
</P>


Untill I see Bradshaw sign a contract with another team it's all speculation. </P>




he just doesn't think that the Giants will offer what he'll get somewhere else

and theres plenty of talent in the RB FA class this year

i have to kind of agree with him
</P>


I've always said RBs are replaceable. And it's not something that can really be argued. I mean look at guys like Arian Foster, Danny Woodhead, Peyton Hillis....
just a matter of finding the right piece basically. I wouldn't be too worried about this.
lol, it's hard to get attached to RBs!!</P>




well what makes it hard is that u don't see how sick he actually is

ur blind *****

</P>


lol of course I know he's good. I also know that we should be fine as long as we have adequate run blocking. I'm confident with our running game, even if AB isnt around this year.</P>

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 10:58 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</p>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</p>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</p>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</p>

<u>i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs.</u> They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.
taxing the rich wont do anything. if we tax the rich guess what happens. the employees of the rich get fired or cuts in their paycheck. the rich will cut cost to make up for the loss and the middle and poor will still get screwed. this has been proven time and time again.

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 10:58 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</p>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</p>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</p>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</p>




i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs. They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.
</p>


Most of the "rich" pay over 50% of their income in taxes between fed and state. There comes a point when they stop investing because of diminishing return. This is simple economic fact.</p>


I have no problem eliminating all deductions and lowering rates so they can't hire tax accountants to get them out of paying their fair share. But the lowering of rates is key to economic growth, which creates jobs and prosperity. Every investment is taxed at your highest rate. Lowering rates will incentivize investment (there's 2 trillion on the sidelines, why do you think that is?) and with the elimination of deductions, they will still pay.</p>I think it should be equal taxation across the board. The wealthy will end up paying more proportionately, but the % should be equal. It's difficult for the rich, their constantly trying to make more so the 50% is enough. Investments that serve as a tax shelter or write-offs (or any break possible) become vital.

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 11:00 AM
Garafolo says that he doesn't think Bradshaw is a Giant this year
</p>


Untill I see Bradshaw sign a contract with another team it's all speculation. </p>




he just doesn't think that the Giants will offer what he'll get somewhere else

and theres plenty of talent in the RB FA class this year

i have to kind of agree with him
</p>


I've always said RBs are replaceable. And it's not something that can really be argued. I mean look at guys like Arian Foster, Danny Woodhead, Peyton Hillis....
just a matter of finding the right piece basically. I wouldn't be too worried about this.
lol, it's hard to get attached to RBs!!</p>




well what makes it hard is that u don't see how sick he actually is

ur blind *****

</p>


lol of course I know he's good. I also know that we should be fine as long as we have adequate run blocking. I'm confident with our running game, even if AB isnt around this year.</p>Agreed,for the most part-with great blocking-virtually any back worth their salt can gain yards.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 11:02 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</p>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</p>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</p>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</p>

<u>i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs.</u> They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.
taxing the rich wont do anything. if we tax the rich guess what happens. the employees of the rich get fired or cuts in their paycheck. the rich will cut cost to make up for the loss and the middle and poor will still get screwed. this has been proven time and time again.


outsourcing jobs is what kills the middle and poor

ny06
07-22-2011, 11:02 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</P>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</P>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</P>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</P>




<U>i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs.</U> They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.
taxing the rich wont do anything. if we tax the rich guess what happens. the employees of the rich get fired or cuts in their paycheck. the rich will cut cost to make up for the loss and the middle and poor will still get screwed. this has been proven time and time again.
</P>


The poor don't get screwed, they have nothign to lose. It's the middle class that get's screwed. </P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 11:03 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</p>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</p>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</p>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</p>




i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs. They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.
</p>


Most of the "rich" pay over 50% of their income in taxes between fed and state. There comes a point when they stop investing because of diminishing return. This is simple economic fact.</p>


I have no problem eliminating all deductions and lowering rates so they can't hire tax accountants to get them out of paying their fair share. But the lowering of rates is key to economic growth, which creates jobs and prosperity. Every investment is taxed at your highest rate. Lowering rates will incentivize investment (there's 2 trillion on the sidelines, why do you think that is?) and with the elimination of deductions, they will still pay.</p>I think it should be equal taxation across the board. The wealthy will end up paying more proportionately, but the % should be equal. It's difficult for the rich, their constantly trying to make more so the 50% is enough. Investments that serve as a tax shelter or write-offs (or any break possible) become vital.


it probably could work in an uncorrupt government

but our governement doesn't provide schooling, health insurance, and gets us into bull**** wars all the time. In a perfect world it would be possible., but thats far what we are from

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 11:05 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</p>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</p>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</p>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</p>




i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs. They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.
</p>


Most of the "rich" pay over 50% of their income in taxes between fed and state. There comes a point when they stop investing because of diminishing return. This is simple economic fact.</p>


I have no problem eliminating all deductions and lowering rates so they can't hire tax accountants to get them out of paying their fair share. But the lowering of rates is key to economic growth, which creates jobs and prosperity. Every investment is taxed at your highest rate. Lowering rates will incentivize investment (there's 2 trillion on the sidelines, why do you think that is?) and with the elimination of deductions, they will still pay.</p>I think it should be equal taxation across the board. The wealthy will end up paying more proportionately, but the % should be equal. It's difficult for the rich, their constantly trying to make more so the 50% is enough. Investments that serve as a tax shelter or write-offs (or any break possible) become vital.
im sorry but i think its absurd that anyone should have to give 50% of what they make to the gov, doesnt matter if its bill gates or that guy ted williams. this country was founded because of high taxes.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 11:08 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</p>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</p>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</p>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</p>




i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs. They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.
</p>


Most of the "rich" pay over 50% of their income in taxes between fed and state. There comes a point when they stop investing because of diminishing return. This is simple economic fact.</p>


I have no problem eliminating all deductions and lowering rates so they can't hire tax accountants to get them out of paying their fair share. But the lowering of rates is key to economic growth, which creates jobs and prosperity. Every investment is taxed at your highest rate. Lowering rates will incentivize investment (there's 2 trillion on the sidelines, why do you think that is?) and with the elimination of deductions, they will still pay.</p>I think it should be equal taxation across the board. The wealthy will end up paying more proportionately, but the % should be equal. It's difficult for the rich, their constantly trying to make more so the 50% is enough. Investments that serve as a tax shelter or write-offs (or any break possible) become vital.
im sorry but i think its absurd that anyone should have to give 50% of what they make to the gov, doesnt matter if its bill gates or that guy ted williams. this country was founded because of high taxes.


im pretty sure it was because the poor were being taxed out of their ***

lol u kind of just hurt ur own point

aka - the poor couldn't make ends meet

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 11:09 AM
Really??? Wow!!! That's gotta be better than viagara. Reminds me of Rescue me Epi this week.
http://chzmemebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/memes-so-now-i-want-meth.jpg

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 11:09 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</P>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</P>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</P>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</P>




<U>i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs.</U> They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.
taxing the rich wont do anything. if we tax the rich guess what happens. the employees of the rich get fired or cuts in their paycheck. the rich will cut cost to make up for the loss and the middle and poor will still get screwed. this has been proven time and time again.
</P>


The poor don't get screwed, they have nothign to lose. It's the middle class that get's screwed. </P>


</P>


I'm in the middle class and I don't feel screwed at all. I've been broke in my life, I've been bankrupt in my life, and I have never felt screwed (except by my ex wife). I am responsible and in control of my life.</P>


All I ask is that the government stay out of my life as much as possible while still defending the country and taking care of those who can't take care of themselves. </P>

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 11:10 AM
and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big


The differences between Democrats and Republicans are mostly ideological, neither is inherently a bigger **** bag then the other because of their intentions...

In short, to simplify as much as possible...

Dem's want your tax money to go to the government...and the government will decide where to use that money.

Rep's want you to keep your tax money, and for you to decide where to use it.

and to bring it back to football, all the complaining the players did last night...well many of them are regretting it now that they are actually looking at the new plan, many analyst and players were making snap judgements on something they knew nothing about last night...

The deal is sounds good today...and it sounds like they are gonna take it.

ny06
07-22-2011, 11:12 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</P>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</P>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</P>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</P>




<U>i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs.</U> They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.
taxing the rich wont do anything. if we tax the rich guess what happens. the employees of the rich get fired or cuts in their paycheck. the rich will cut cost to make up for the loss and the middle and poor will still get screwed. this has been proven time and time again.
</P>


The poor don't get screwed, they have nothign to lose. It's the middle class that get's screwed. </P>


</P>


I'm in the middle class and I don't feel screwed at all. I've been broke in my life, I've been bankrupt in my life, and I have never felt screwed (except by my ex wife). I am responsible and in control of my life.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>All I ask is that the government stay out of my life as much as possible</FONT> while still defending the country and taking care of those who can't take care of themselves. </P>


</P>


Big Brother is always watching.</P>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 11:15 AM
http://www.photobasement.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/gif-transform.gif

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 11:15 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</P>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</P>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</P>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</P>




<U>i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs.</U> They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.
taxing the rich wont do anything. if we tax the rich guess what happens. the employees of the rich get fired or cuts in their paycheck. the rich will cut cost to make up for the loss and the middle and poor will still get screwed. this has been proven time and time again.
</P>


The poor don't get screwed, they have nothign to lose. It's the middle class that get's screwed. </P>


</P>


I'm in the middle class and I don't feel screwed at all. I've been broke in my life, I've been bankrupt in my life, and I have never felt screwed (except by my ex wife). I am responsible and in control of my life.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>All I ask is that the government stay out of my life as much as possible</FONT> while still defending the country and taking care of those who can't take care of themselves. </P>


</P>


Big Brother is always watching.</P>


</P>


We have people in the government who know how to watch you through the cam on your computer.</P>


This is a fact.</P>

ny06
07-22-2011, 11:16 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</P>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</P>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</P>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</P>




<U>i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs.</U> They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.
taxing the rich wont do anything. if we tax the rich guess what happens. the employees of the rich get fired or cuts in their paycheck. the rich will cut cost to make up for the loss and the middle and poor will still get screwed. this has been proven time and time again.
</P>


The poor don't get screwed, they have nothign to lose. It's the middle class that get's screwed. </P>


</P>


I'm in the middle class and I don't feel screwed at all. I've been broke in my life, I've been bankrupt in my life, and I have never felt screwed (except by my ex wife). I am responsible and in control of my life.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>All I ask is that the government stay out of my life as much as possible</FONT> while still defending the country and taking care of those who can't take care of themselves. </P>


</P>


Big Brother is always watching.</P>


</P>


We have people in the government who know how to watch you through the cam on your computer.</P>


This is a fact.</P>


</P>


Another fact is they listen in on your phone calls. </P>

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 11:17 AM
http://www.photobasement.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/gif-transform.gif</P>


We have to change your name to "Captain Random".</P>

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 11:17 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</p>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</p>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</p>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</p>




i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs. They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.
</p>


Most of the "rich" pay over 50% of their income in taxes between fed and state. There comes a point when they stop investing because of diminishing return. This is simple economic fact.</p>


I have no problem eliminating all deductions and lowering rates so they can't hire tax accountants to get them out of paying their fair share. But the lowering of rates is key to economic growth, which creates jobs and prosperity. Every investment is taxed at your highest rate. Lowering rates will incentivize investment (there's 2 trillion on the sidelines, why do you think that is?) and with the elimination of deductions, they will still pay.</p>I think it should be equal taxation across the board. The wealthy will end up paying more proportionately, but the % should be equal. It's difficult for the rich, their constantly trying to make more so the 50% is enough. Investments that serve as a tax shelter or write-offs (or any break possible) become vital.
im sorry but i think its absurd that anyone should have to give 50% of what they make to the gov, doesnt matter if its bill gates or that guy ted williams. this country was founded because of high taxes.


im pretty sure it was because the poor were being taxed out of their ***

lol u kind of just hurt ur own point

aka - the poor couldn't make ends meet
everyone was being taxed out the ***. the founding fathers werent poor. and how did i hurt my point? i want equality for all americans, thats what america is about. what the hells the point of working if the gov just going to get half?

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 11:17 AM
and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big


The differences between Democrats and Republicans are mostly ideological, neither is inherently a bigger **** bag then the other because of their intentions...

In short, to simplify as much as possible...

Dem's want your tax money to go to the government...and the government will decide where to use that money.

Rep's want you to keep your tax money, and for you to decide where to use it.

and to bring it back to football, all the complaining the players did last night...well many of them are regretting it now that they are actually looking at the new plan, many analyst and players were making snap judgements on something they knew nothing about last night...

The deal is sounds good today...and it sounds like they are gonna take it.


hope they do

at leats democrats have the initial philosophy of trying to take care of teh country while repubs take care of themselves

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 11:20 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</p>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</p>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</p>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</p>




<u>i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs.</u> They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.
taxing the rich wont do anything. if we tax the rich guess what happens. the employees of the rich get fired or cuts in their paycheck. the rich will cut cost to make up for the loss and the middle and poor will still get screwed. this has been proven time and time again.
</p>


The poor don't get screwed, they have nothign to lose. It's the middle class that get's screwed. </p>sure the poor with feel it. if rich get tax more, there are less jobs. plus like matt said businesses will be more prone to send jobs overseas for cheaper. we have to stay competitive.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 11:21 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</p>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</p>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</p>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</p>




i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs. They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.
</p>


Most of the "rich" pay over 50% of their income in taxes between fed and state. There comes a point when they stop investing because of diminishing return. This is simple economic fact.</p>


I have no problem eliminating all deductions and lowering rates so they can't hire tax accountants to get them out of paying their fair share. But the lowering of rates is key to economic growth, which creates jobs and prosperity. Every investment is taxed at your highest rate. Lowering rates will incentivize investment (there's 2 trillion on the sidelines, why do you think that is?) and with the elimination of deductions, they will still pay.</p>I think it should be equal taxation across the board. The wealthy will end up paying more proportionately, but the % should be equal. It's difficult for the rich, their constantly trying to make more so the 50% is enough. Investments that serve as a tax shelter or write-offs (or any break possible) become vital.
im sorry but i think its absurd that anyone should have to give 50% of what they make to the gov, doesnt matter if its bill gates or that guy ted williams. this country was founded because of high taxes.


im pretty sure it was because the poor were being taxed out of their ***

lol u kind of just hurt ur own point

aka - the poor couldn't make ends meet
everyone was being taxed out the ***. the founding fathers werent poor. and how did i hurt my point? i want equality for all americans, thats what america is about. what the hells the point of working if the gov just going to get half?


your really trying to compare escaping a foreign power to our country today and its ridic. The general philosophy was to take care of Americans - people that actually lived here.

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 11:23 AM
and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big


The differences between Democrats and Republicans are mostly ideological, neither is inherently a bigger **** bag then the other because of their intentions...

In short, to simplify as much as possible...

Dem's want your tax money to go to the government...and the government will decide where to use that money.

Rep's want you to keep your tax money, and for you to decide where to use it.

and to bring it back to football, all the complaining the players did last night...well many of them are regretting it now that they are actually looking at the new plan, many analyst and players were making snap judgements on something they knew nothing about last night...

The deal is sounds good today...and it sounds like they are gonna take it.


hope they do

<u>at leats democrats have the initial philosophy of trying to take care of teh country while repubs take care of themselves</u>


lol giiive me a break.

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 11:26 AM
and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big


The differences between Democrats and Republicans are mostly ideological, neither is inherently a bigger **** bag then the other because of their intentions...

In short, to simplify as much as possible...

Dem's want your tax money to go to the government...and the government will decide where to use that money.

Rep's want you to keep your tax money, and for you to decide where to use it.

and to bring it back to football, all the complaining the players did last night...well many of them are regretting it now that they are actually looking at the new plan, many analyst and players were making snap judgements on something they knew nothing about last night...

The deal is sounds good today...and it sounds like they are gonna take it.


hope they do

at leats democrats have the initial philosophy of trying to take care of teh country while repubs take care of themselves


</P>


The trap of "good intentions". Good intentions will be the ruin of us. Back in the Clinton admin. they passed a "luxury tax". Yachts were taxed an addition 10%. Well why not? The rich can afford it.</P>


The yacht building industry saw a huge drop in sales (more than 50%) and thousands of everyday, middle class workers had to be laid off. The tax was repealed.</P>


Allowing people to have as much opportunity as possible is the only way to create prosperity. 235 years as the most properous country in history is proof.</P>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 11:26 AM
I'm sorry if I am being a simpleton today-this is some of the funniest **** I have seen in a while.
http://www.photobasement.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/fail-11.jpg

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/198099_10150168786207744_184431752743_8748657_4378 683_n.jpg

So True--I would of reached for a ruler if it were nearby. fyi-My thumbs FAT &amp; HUGE.
http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/tuesdays-dar-5.jpg?w=500&amp;h=468

http://i.imgur.com/KqGIx.jpg

http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/1310985510_gifki_07.gif?w=450&amp;h=359
http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/1310985344_gifki_03.gif?w=363&amp;h=219
http://thechive.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/1310975481_1307345783_gifki_06.gif?w=300&amp;h=206

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 11:27 AM
and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big


The differences between Democrats and Republicans are mostly ideological, neither is inherently a bigger **** bag then the other because of their intentions...

In short, to simplify as much as possible...

Dem's want your tax money to go to the government...and the government will decide where to use that money.

Rep's want you to keep your tax money, and for you to decide where to use it.

and to bring it back to football, all the complaining the players did last night...well many of them are regretting it now that they are actually looking at the new plan, many analyst and players were making snap judgements on something they knew nothing about last night...

The deal is sounds good today...and it sounds like they are gonna take it.


hope they do

<u>at leats democrats have the initial philosophy of trying to take care of teh country while repubs take care of themselves</u>


lol giiive me a break.


the concept that we should take care of those who outsourced jobs and handshake that they will bring them back one day is funny... hence the bottom line of republicans when it comes to employment

My thoughts? They are gone and never coming back. **** those people that did it. They are about business and bottom lines.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 11:27 AM
and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big


The differences between Democrats and Republicans are mostly ideological, neither is inherently a bigger **** bag then the other because of their intentions...

In short, to simplify as much as possible...

Dem's want your tax money to go to the government...and the government will decide where to use that money.

Rep's want you to keep your tax money, and for you to decide where to use it.

and to bring it back to football, all the complaining the players did last night...well many of them are regretting it now that they are actually looking at the new plan, many analyst and players were making snap judgements on something they knew nothing about last night...

The deal is sounds good today...and it sounds like they are gonna take it.


hope they do

at leats democrats have the initial philosophy of trying to take care of teh country while repubs take care of themselves


</p>


The trap of "good intentions". Good intentions will be the ruin of us. Back in the Clinton admin. they passed a "luxury tax". Yachts were taxed an addition 10%. Well why not? The rich can afford it.</p>


The yacht building industry saw a huge drop in sales (more than 50%) and thousands of everyday, middle class workers had to be laid off. The tax was repealed.</p>


Allowing people to have as much opportunity as possible is the only way to create prosperity. 235 years as the most properous country in history is proof.</p>

lol good intentions are better than just blatant bad intentions lol

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 11:27 AM
We have to change your name to "Captain Random".

Sorry--very easily distracted lately.

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 11:29 AM
and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big


The differences between Democrats and Republicans are mostly ideological, neither is inherently a bigger **** bag then the other because of their intentions...

In short, to simplify as much as possible...

Dem's want your tax money to go to the government...and the government will decide where to use that money.

Rep's want you to keep your tax money, and for you to decide where to use it.

and to bring it back to football, all the complaining the players did last night...well many of them are regretting it now that they are actually looking at the new plan, many analyst and players were making snap judgements on something they knew nothing about last night...

The deal is sounds good today...and it sounds like they are gonna take it.


hope they do

at leats democrats have the initial philosophy of trying to take care of teh country while repubs take care of themselves


</p>


The trap of "good intentions". Good intentions will be the ruin of us. Back in the Clinton admin. they passed a "luxury tax". Yachts were taxed an addition 10%. Well why not? The rich can afford it.</p>


The yacht building industry saw a huge drop in sales (more than 50%) and thousands of everyday, middle class workers had to be laid off. The tax was repealed.</p>


Allowing people to have as much opportunity as possible is the only way to create prosperity. 235 years as the most properous country in history is proof.</p>

lol good intentions are better than just blatant bad intentions lol
or the intent to deceive from the onset.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 11:29 AM
ahhh - E was fun lol

awful come downs though

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 11:32 AM
i am going to go look for the article i read a week or so ago. I didn't want to bring it in here that day forwhatever reason... it was just something that I found pretty funny

That the Republicans crying baout spent money and their proposal had us spending even more money and givng the rich tax breaks

its **** like that why i hate them. They just use scare tactics and abuse the ******ed of the country (hicks) asnd use god as a weapon. They are just slimeballs

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 11:33 AM
i am going to go look for the article i read a week or so ago. I didn't want to bring it in here that day forwhatever reason... it was just something that I found pretty funny

That the Republicans crying baout spent money and their proposal had us spending even more money and givng the rich tax breaks

its **** like that why i hate them. They just use scare tactics and abuse the ******ed of the country (hicks) asnd use god as a weapon. They are just slimeballs
</P>


Scare tactics? You mean like "Republicans want to throw grandma in the street?</P>


Those kinds of scare tactics?</P>

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 11:34 AM
im pretty sure it was because the poor were being taxed out of their ***

lol u kind of just hurt ur own point

aka - the poor couldn't make ends meet


The poor barely pay any taxes at all Matt...nearly 50% of the country actually get money back from filing their federal income taxes...

the poor have a GREAT deal in America...it's the pseudo rich who are being persecuted at the moment....the guys making 100k-300k they are being taxed at 50% and higher in most cases, sure they still do well because 50% is still 150k or so...but the point is they are taking all that money from them...and then wasting it on failed plans to "stimulate" the economy....the best way to stimulate the economy is to let these people keep their money...they will spend it on boats...trips....and other industries...which create jobs for the lower to middle class people....

god knows the government can't create jobs....they've been trying for 4 years...they've literally raised the debt in the pas 3 years more then all the other presidents combined...seriously going back to 1778 till 3 years ago..add ALL the spending...it's less money then the current administration has spent trying to save the economy....and whats happened? it's only gotten worse and worse...

you simply CAN NOT blame bush anymore...it's not a feasible argument at this point....government spending has failed...clearly...but yet we are still pushing to raise the debt limit...increase taxing....so the government can spend more?

how does this make sense...who else but the government gets to say..."our plan failed because we didn't spend enough, let us try again with more money" it's ******ed, it won't work...we have to try something different...and in my opinion, cuts to spending by the government seems to be the best first step.

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 11:35 AM
ahhh - E was fun lol

awful come downs though
I've dealt with peeps on those come-downs--equally painfull for us. How does E enhance the bedroom experience?

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 11:35 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</p>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</p>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</p>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</p>




i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs. They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.
</p>


Most of the "rich" pay over 50% of their income in taxes between fed and state. There comes a point when they stop investing because of diminishing return. This is simple economic fact.</p>


I have no problem eliminating all deductions and lowering rates so they can't hire tax accountants to get them out of paying their fair share. But the lowering of rates is key to economic growth, which creates jobs and prosperity. Every investment is taxed at your highest rate. Lowering rates will incentivize investment (there's 2 trillion on the sidelines, why do you think that is?) and with the elimination of deductions, they will still pay.</p>I think it should be equal taxation across the board. The wealthy will end up paying more proportionately, but the % should be equal. It's difficult for the rich, their constantly trying to make more so the 50% is enough. Investments that serve as a tax shelter or write-offs (or any break possible) become vital.
im sorry but i think its absurd that anyone should have to give 50% of what they make to the gov, doesnt matter if its bill gates or that guy ted williams. this country was founded because of high taxes.


im pretty sure it was because the poor were being taxed out of their ***

lol u kind of just hurt ur own point

aka - the poor couldn't make ends meet
everyone was being taxed out the ***. the founding fathers werent poor. and how did i hurt my point? i want equality for all americans, thats what america is about. what the hells the point of working if the gov just going to get half?


your really trying to compare escaping a foreign power to our country today and its ridic. The general philosophy was to take care of Americans - people that actually lived here.
its not ridiculous. were on the verge of another great depression and you have a party that wants to raise taxes. yea thats genius. america wasnt america until we declared independence. most civilians were of british decent and the general philosophy was to get rid of the british and start a new country because of high taxes without representation.

like mel gibson says in the patriot, "why should I trade one tyrant(king george 3) three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants(todays congress) one mile away?"

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 11:35 AM
im pretty sure it was because the poor were being taxed out of their ***

lol u kind of just hurt ur own point

aka - the poor couldn't make ends meet


The poor barely pay any taxes at all Matt...nearly 50% of the country actually get money back from filing their federal income taxes...

the poor have a GREAT deal in America...it's the pseudo rich who are being persecuted at the moment....the guys making 100k-300k they are being taxed at 50% and higher in most cases, sure they still do well because 50% is still 150k or so...but the point is they are taking all that money from them...and then wasting it on failed plans to "stimulate" the economy....the best way to stimulate the economy is to let these people keep their money...they will spend it on boats...trips....and other industries...which create jobs for the lower to middle class people....

god knows the government can't create jobs....they've been trying for 4 years...they've literally raised the debt in the pas 3 years more then all the other presidents combined...seriously going back to 1778 till 3 years ago..add ALL the spending...it's less money then the current administration has spent trying to save the economy....and whats happened? it's only gotten worse and worse...

you simply CAN NOT blame bush anymore...it's not a feasible argument at this point....government spending has failed...clearly...but yet we are still pushing to raise the debt limit...increase taxing....so the government can spend more?

how does this make sense...who else but the government gets to say..."our plan failed because we didn't spend enough, let us try again with more money" it's ******ed, it won't work...we have to try something different...and in my opinion, cuts to spending by the government seems to be the best first step.


the pseudo rich get a bad rap? Would they even be pseudo rich if not for america?

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 11:37 AM
and pleaaaase shut the **** up about the debt.. its so stupid how u republicans really try to foot us with the bill. The damage Bush did set us bcak way more than 3 years...

And again, i can't wait to look for that article saying that the republican proposed plan would actually increase the debt as well

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 11:39 AM
and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big


The differences between Democrats and Republicans are mostly ideological, neither is inherently a bigger **** bag then the other because of their intentions...

In short, to simplify as much as possible...

Dem's want your tax money to go to the government...and the government will decide where to use that money.

Rep's want you to keep your tax money, and for you to decide where to use it.

and to bring it back to football, all the complaining the players did last night...well many of them are regretting it now that they are actually looking at the new plan, many analyst and players were making snap judgements on something they knew nothing about last night...

The deal is sounds good today...and it sounds like they are gonna take it.


hope they do

at leats democrats have the initial philosophy of trying to take care of teh country while repubs take care of themselves


</p>


The trap of "good intentions". Good intentions will be the ruin of us. Back in the Clinton admin. they passed a "luxury tax". Yachts were taxed an addition 10%. Well why not? The rich can afford it.</p>


The yacht building industry saw a huge drop in sales (more than 50%) and thousands of everyday, middle class workers had to be laid off. The tax was repealed.</p>


Allowing people to have as much opportunity as possible is the only way to create prosperity. 235 years as the most properous country in history is proof.</p>

lol good intentions are better than just blatant bad intentions lol


you don't understand the conservative philosophy...still, that's why you think their ideas are bad intentioned.

when you see tax cuts to the rich you see "look at those ******* republicans helping out their rich buddies again" when a conservative...(someone who believes in that philosophy) see's tax cuts to the rich we see "look at that...they are going to spur growth in the economy and HELP the poor get jobs"

that's the problem....you see bad intentions when actually it's good intentions.

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 11:43 AM
ahhh - E was fun lol

awful come downs though
e was very fun. being Etarded was not

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 11:44 AM
Would they even be pseudo rich if not for america?

Yes, in most cases at this point, they would be, but because they became rich here they are forced to pay an absurd amount in taxes...more so then many other countries, which is why America is losing many of it's smartest citizens....people are beginning to realize that America is not a good place to live if you want to work hard and be successful...which is a serious problem.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 11:45 AM
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/cbo-gop-budget-would-increase-debt-then-stick-it-to-medicare-patients.php


http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html


i just found that last one looking for the first article. The first article isnt' the one i read, the one i read was more indepth but basically the same points.

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 11:46 AM
i am going to go look for the article i read a week or so ago. I didn't want to bring it in here that day forwhatever reason... it was just something that I found pretty funny

That the Republicans crying baout spent money and their proposal had us spending even more money and givng the rich tax breaks

its **** like that why i hate them. They just use scare tactics and abuse the ******ed of the country (hicks) asnd use god as a weapon. They are just slimeballs
</p>


Scare tactics? You mean like "Republicans want to throw grandma in the street?</p>


Those kinds of scare tactics?</p>or how about when speaking about tea party members chuck schumer likes to use the words "extreme" and "unpredictable"

patsrule666
07-22-2011, 11:48 AM
im pretty sure it was because the poor were being taxed out of their ***

lol u kind of just hurt ur own point

aka - the poor couldn't make ends meet


The poor barely pay any taxes at all Matt...nearly 50% of the country actually get money back from filing their federal income taxes...

the poor have a GREAT deal in America...it's the pseudo rich who are being persecuted at the moment....the guys making 100k-300k they are being taxed at 50% and higher in most cases, sure they still do well because 50% is still 150k or so...but the point is they are taking all that money from them...and then wasting it on failed plans to "stimulate" the economy....the best way to stimulate the economy is to let these people keep their money...they will spend it on boats...trips....and other industries...which create jobs for the lower to middle class people....

god knows the government can't create jobs....they've been trying for 4 years...they've literally raised the debt in the pas 3 years more then all the other presidents combined...seriously going back to 1778 till 3 years ago..add ALL the spending...it's less money then the current administration has spent trying to save the economy....and whats happened? it's only gotten worse and worse...

you simply CAN NOT blame bush anymore...it's not a feasible argument at this point....government spending has failed...clearly...but yet we are still pushing to raise the debt limit...increase taxing....so the government can spend more?

how does this make sense...who else but the government gets to say..."our plan failed because we didn't spend enough, let us try again with more money" it's ******ed, it won't work...we have to try something different...and in my opinion, cuts to spending by the government seems to be the best first step.
I must say that i am very impressed with your political views Dav. Your global and environmental views not so much, but political, very much so..............
MH- Them tees come in white? Or any other color than brown??

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 11:48 AM
i am going to go look for the article i read a week or so ago. I didn't want to bring it in here that day forwhatever reason... it was just something that I found pretty funny

That the Republicans crying baout spent money and their proposal had us spending even more money and givng the rich tax breaks

its **** like that why i hate them. They just use scare tactics and abuse the ******ed of the country (hicks) asnd use god as a weapon. They are just slimeballs
</p>


Scare tactics? You mean like "Republicans want to throw grandma in the street?</p>


Those kinds of scare tactics?</p>

so u aren't against killing social security and medicare?

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 11:48 AM
and pleaaaase shut the **** up about the debt.. its so stupid how u republicans really try to foot us with the bill. The damage Bush did set us bcak way more than 3 years...

And again, i can't wait to look for that article saying that the republican proposed plan would actually increase the debt as well
bush spent around the same that clinton, bush sr, and reagan. the economy really started to tank the second nancy and co. took over the senate and the house.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 11:49 AM
ahhh - E was fun lol

awful come downs though
I've dealt with peeps on those come-downs--equally painfull for us. How does E enhance the bedroom experience?


completely overrated

u can't pop

u go too long and ur body is already overheated as it is so u sweat like a mofo

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 11:51 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</p>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</p>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</p>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</p>




i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs. They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.
</p>


Most of the "rich" pay over 50% of their income in taxes between fed and state. There comes a point when they stop investing because of diminishing return. This is simple economic fact.</p>


I have no problem eliminating all deductions and lowering rates so they can't hire tax accountants to get them out of paying their fair share. But the lowering of rates is key to economic growth, which creates jobs and prosperity. Every investment is taxed at your highest rate. Lowering rates will incentivize investment (there's 2 trillion on the sidelines, why do you think that is?) and with the elimination of deductions, they will still pay.</p>I think it should be equal taxation across the board. The wealthy will end up paying more proportionately, but the % should be equal. It's difficult for the rich, their constantly trying to make more so the 50% is enough. Investments that serve as a tax shelter or write-offs (or any break possible) become vital.
im sorry but i think its absurd that anyone should have to give 50% of what they make to the gov, doesnt matter if its bill gates or that guy ted williams. this country was founded because of high taxes.


im pretty sure it was because the poor were being taxed out of their ***

lol u kind of just hurt ur own point

aka - the poor couldn't make ends meet
everyone was being taxed out the ***. the founding fathers werent poor. and how did i hurt my point? i want equality for all americans, thats what america is about. what the hells the point of working if the gov just going to get half?


your really trying to compare escaping a foreign power to our country today and its ridic. The general philosophy was to take care of Americans - people that actually lived here.
its not ridiculous. were on the verge of another great depression and you have a party that wants to raise taxes. yea thats genius. america wasnt america until we declared independence. most civilians were of british decent and the general philosophy was to get rid of the british and start a new country because of high taxes without representation.

like mel gibson says in the patriot, "why should I trade one tyrant(king george 3) three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants(todays congress) one mile away?"

raise taxes on those that can afford it...

today we are the british

i agree

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 11:52 AM
and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big


The differences between Democrats and Republicans are mostly ideological, neither is inherently a bigger **** bag then the other because of their intentions...

In short, to simplify as much as possible...

Dem's want your tax money to go to the government...and the government will decide where to use that money.

Rep's want you to keep your tax money, and for you to decide where to use it.

and to bring it back to football, all the complaining the players did last night...well many of them are regretting it now that they are actually looking at the new plan, many analyst and players were making snap judgements on something they knew nothing about last night...

The deal is sounds good today...and it sounds like they are gonna take it.


hope they do

at leats democrats have the initial philosophy of trying to take care of teh country while repubs take care of themselves


</p>


The trap of "good intentions". Good intentions will be the ruin of us. Back in the Clinton admin. they passed a "luxury tax". Yachts were taxed an addition 10%. Well why not? The rich can afford it.</p>


The yacht building industry saw a huge drop in sales (more than 50%) and thousands of everyday, middle class workers had to be laid off. The tax was repealed.</p>


Allowing people to have as much opportunity as possible is the only way to create prosperity. 235 years as the most properous country in history is proof.</p>

lol good intentions are better than just blatant bad intentions lol


you don't understand the conservative philosophy...still, that's why you think their ideas are bad intentioned.

when you see tax cuts to the rich you see "look at those ******* republicans helping out their rich buddies again" when a conservative...(someone who believes in that philosophy) see's tax cuts to the rich we see "look at that...they are going to spur growth in the economy and HELP the poor get jobs"

that's the problem....you see bad intentions when actually it's good intentions.


well it boils down to one simple fact about that:

if u give thees guys the tax breaks, do you see them stopping outsourcing? I dont so I say eat their souls

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 11:53 AM
and pleaaaase shut the **** up about the debt.. its so stupid how u republicans really try to foot us with the bill. The damage Bush did set us bcak way more than 3 years...

And again, i can't wait to look for that article saying that the republican proposed plan would actually increase the debt as well


First off it's bull**** that the republicans even have to come up with this budget...this was supposed to be done months and months ago while the Democrates still had the house...but they simply REFUSED to do a budget...they refused because they knew the HAD to make cuts, but making cuts isn't what their base wants so they just said...nope...we aren't going to do our jobs...cause it'll make us look bad, so now it's on the Republicans to clean up after the Democrats (as usual when it comes to the economy) so we try to put forth a conservative plan, we don't want to raise the debt ceiling unless there are some SOLID promises that we will make cuts to reduce the spending so we aren't just raising it again 6 months down the road.....and because we are asking for just a tiny little bit of fiscal responsibility we are accused of wanting to "throw grandma out on the street" etc etc

The fear mongering...and the out right LIEING this administration does just because we ask that they take some responsibility for THEIR mistakes is astounding....never before has our president been more dishonest in my opinion....I would take Nixon's word over Obama's any day of the week.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 11:54 AM
Would they even be pseudo rich if not for america?

Yes, in most cases at this point, they would be, but because they became rich here they are forced to pay an absurd amount in taxes...more so then many other countries, which is why America is losing many of it's smartest citizens...<font size="6">.people are beginning to realize that America is not a good place to live if you want to work hard and be successful...which is a serious problem.</font>


what kind of people are u referring to? Just curious

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 11:56 AM
they own the league. lol its their money. its like you think everyone with money is some corporate scum bag looking to **** everyone. STOP STEREOTYPING!!! nothing ever seems good enough for these players. sounds a lot like the osi situation, only on a much larger scale, and you want osi gone.


i'm not going to pretend to understand all the ins and out of the CBA and all of that...

but that 9bil is getting split with the players so obviously it wasn't their money

and don't mistake me saying republicans are huge pieces of ****s as me being a conspiracy theory type guy. I think Democrats are **** bags too... just not as big
</P>


Its amazing how small political differences really are.</P>


You and I think that both repulican and democrat politicians are jaggoffs. You just think that the GOP is slightly more jaggoffy that Dems. I think the opposite.</P>


Thats right....I said "jaggoffy"</P>




i just find it hilarious that you think the rich shouldn't be taxed as heavy, even though they have the money, because they create jobs. They do create jobs, in India.

I wouldn't mind giving dudes a break that actually do create and keep jobs in America. But the money can't come from the bottom to get us out of this mess.
</P>


Most of the "rich" pay over 50% of their income in taxes between fed and state. There comes a point when they stop investing because of diminishing return. This is simple economic fact.</P>


I have no problem eliminating all deductions and lowering rates so they can't hire tax accountants to get them out of paying their fair share. But the lowering of rates is key to economic growth, which creates jobs and prosperity. Every investment is taxed at your highest rate. Lowering rates will incentivize investment (there's 2 trillion on the sidelines, why do you think that is?) and with the elimination of deductions, they will still pay.</P>




Theres definitly a stalemate, because with all the outsourcing theres no way to justify giving them these breaks.

Are we suppose to go on scouts honor of business men?
</P>


Are you blaming outsourcing on the GOP?</P>


I'm sorry Matt, but it was Bill Clinton who lobbied hard and got NAFTA passed.</P>


We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world. Thats why in a global economy American Compnaies are often forced to outsource manufacturing. Plus companies like Wal Mart force them to by threatening their business unless they can provide $14.00 jeans.</P>


Lower the tax rate on corporations and you will create incentive to manufacture in the US. Lower the power of unions and companies will be able to afford to manufacture in the US. Lower state and local taxes and companies can afford to manufacture in the US.</P>


Then we all win. But no, we must punish the rich and force them to outsource to India and China.</P>

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 11:57 AM
well it boils down to one simple fact about that:

if u give thees guys the tax breaks, do you see them stopping outsourcing? I dont so I say eat their souls


First off American labor has become very competitive recently...I know a lot of the stuff we started sending to china is coming back here now, so outsourcing is not as big a problem as you are making it out to be at the moment....(and as mentioned by Morehead...the outsourcing problem lies squarely on the Dems to begin with)

Secondly it's not "JUST" outsourcing that's the problem, one of the biggest problems is that when you tax people who make 100K-300K a year 50% they get worried, they want a "nest egg" they want to know they are safe incase the worst happens....these are generally competent people who look out for themselves and their future.....when you are taxing them so much they stop spending money on "nice" things....jewelry...dinners...boats....trips etc etc etc....because they stop spending to ensure their safety...people in those industries lose their jobs....stop Taxing them...they start going on vacation more, they start going to the fancy restaurants more they buy new cars etc etc etc.....which means more jobs for blue collar workers.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 11:58 AM
i am going to go look for the article i read a week or so ago. I didn't want to bring it in here that day forwhatever reason... it was just something that I found pretty funny

That the Republicans crying baout spent money and their proposal had us spending even more money and givng the rich tax breaks

its **** like that why i hate them. They just use scare tactics and abuse the ******ed of the country (hicks) asnd use god as a weapon. They are just slimeballs
</p>


Scare tactics? You mean like "Republicans want to throw grandma in the street?</p>


Those kinds of scare tactics?</p>or how about when speaking about tea party members chuck schumer likes to use the words "extreme" and "unpredictable"


Sarah Palin and Ron Paul knid of the leaders or most popular teabaggers

i'd say extreme na unpredictable would be accurate in them

and i actually like Ron Paul

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 12:00 PM
what kind of people are u referring to? Just curious

generally people who want to own their own business and be "reasonably" successful...

I'm not talking Bill Gates or Jobes...they make soooo much money it doesn't matter (but btw even if we took the top 10 earners yearly salaries...100% of them and put it towards our deficit it'd barely make a dent) I'm talking about the Upper Middle Class to the Lower Upper Class people.....those people in America...are being PUNISHED for their hard work...and many of them...ARE leaving to countries that are a little more friendly towards them.

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 12:02 PM
i am going to go look for the article i read a week or so ago. I didn't want to bring it in here that day forwhatever reason... it was just something that I found pretty funny

That the Republicans crying baout spent money and their proposal had us spending even more money and givng the rich tax breaks

its **** like that why i hate them. They just use scare tactics and abuse the ******ed of the country (hicks) asnd use god as a weapon. They are just slimeballs
</P>


Scare tactics? You mean like "Republicans want to throw grandma in the street?</P>


Those kinds of scare tactics?</P>


or how about when speaking about tea party members chuck schumer likes to use the words "extreme" and "unpredictable"


Sarah Palin and Ron Paul knid of the leaders or most popular teabaggers

i'd say extreme na unpredictable would be accurate in them

and i actually like Ron Paul
</P>


The tea party was born of the stimulus package. The overreach of the Dem's in 09.</P>


Thank Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi for the tea party. And for all their problems, they are the driving force that is causing our president to advocate spending cuts. Something he otherwise would have never done.</P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 12:04 PM
and pleaaaase shut the **** up about the debt.. its so stupid how u republicans really try to foot us with the bill. The damage Bush did set us bcak way more than 3 years...

And again, i can't wait to look for that article saying that the republican proposed plan would actually increase the debt as well


First off it's bull**** that the republicans even have to come up with this budget...this was supposed to be done months and months ago while the Democrates still had the house...but they simply REFUSED to do a budget...they refused because they knew the HAD to make cuts, but making cuts isn't what their base wants so they just said...nope...we aren't going to do our jobs...cause it'll make us look bad, so now it's on the Republicans to clean up after the Democrats (as usual when it comes to the economy) so we try to put forth a conservative plan, we don't want to raise the debt ceiling unless there are some SOLID promises that we will make cuts to reduce the spending so we aren't just raising it again 6 months down the road.....and because we are asking for just a tiny little bit of fiscal responsibility we are accused of wanting to "throw grandma out on the street" etc etc

The fear mongering...and the out right LIEING this administration does just because we ask that they take some responsibility for THEIR mistakes is astounding....never before has our president been more dishonest in my opinion....I would take Nixon's word over Obama's any day of the week.


lol so basically everything is the democrats fault and nothing bush did set this economy in motion to hwat it is today..

got ya..

it should of all been fixed by obama - because it was possible and logical


this is why i can't stand the republican position

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 12:05 PM
and pleaaaase shut the **** up about the debt.. its so stupid how u republicans really try to foot us with the bill. The damage Bush did set us bcak way more than 3 years...

And again, i can't wait to look for that article saying that the republican proposed plan would actually increase the debt as well


First off it's bull**** that the republicans even have to come up with this budget...this was supposed to be done months and months ago while the Democrates still had the house...but they simply REFUSED to do a budget...they refused because they knew the HAD to make cuts, but making cuts isn't what their base wants so they just said...nope...we aren't going to do our jobs...cause it'll make us look bad, so now it's on the Republicans to clean up after the Democrats (as usual when it comes to the economy) so we try to put forth a conservative plan, we don't want to raise the debt ceiling unless there are some SOLID promises that we will make cuts to reduce the spending so we aren't just raising it again 6 months down the road.....and because we are asking for just a tiny little bit of fiscal responsibility we are accused of wanting to "throw grandma out on the street" etc etc

The fear mongering...and the out right LIEING this administration does just because we ask that they take some responsibility for THEIR mistakes is astounding....never before has our president been more dishonest in my opinion....I would take Nixon's word over Obama's any day of the week.


lol so basically everything is the democrats fault and nothing bush did set this economy in motion to hwat it is today..

got ya..

it should of all been fixed by obama - because it was possible and logical


this is why i can't stand the republican position
</P>


Bush's fiscal policies were a nightmare. Obama is Bush on steroids.</P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 12:09 PM
well it boils down to one simple fact about that:

if u give thees guys the tax breaks, do you see them stopping outsourcing? I dont so I say eat their souls


First off American labor has become very competitive recently...I know a lot of the stuff we started sending to china is coming back here now, so outsourcing is not as big a problem as you are making it out to be at the moment....(and as mentioned by Morehead...the outsourcing problem lies squarely on the Dems to begin with)

Secondly it's not "JUST" outsourcing that's the problem, one of the biggest problems is that when you tax people who make 100K-300K a year 50% they get worried, they want a "nest egg" they want to know they are safe incase the worst happens....these are generally competent people who look out for themselves and their future.....when you are taxing them so much they stop spending money on "nice" things....jewelry...dinners...boats....trips etc etc etc....because they stop spending to ensure their safety...people in those industries lose their jobs....stop Taxing them...they start going on vacation more, they start going to the fancy restaurants more they buy new cars etc etc etc.....which means more jobs for blue collar workers.


and this is another scare tactic that is played out by the republicans. The threat that they will stop making money and they are having issues and bla bla bla

its all bull****. They all still live basically the same way they did. You want the truth of the matter?

My brothers ex wife (the *****) was a high VP at Tiffanys jewelry. You knwo what she always said : "There ain't no recession at tiffanys"

one of my good friends (the one u actually had a tiff with draft day lol) works at Mercedes, you know what she says: "There ain't no recession at Mercedes"

these places are still making their sales. I'm so sick of hearing that these things and then turning around. These people really are not hurting like they claim to be. The nest egg argument, u make it sound like its a bad thing.

Bottom line, if that money doesn't come in from them where does it come in from

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 12:10 PM
what kind of people are u referring to? Just curious

generally people who want to own their own business and be "reasonably" successful...

I'm not talking Bill Gates or Jobes...they make soooo much money it doesn't matter (but btw even if we took the top 10 earners yearly salaries...100% of them and put it towards our deficit it'd barely make a dent) I'm talking about the Upper Middle Class to the Lower Upper Class people.....those people in America...are being PUNISHED for their hard work...and many of them...ARE leaving to countries that are a little more friendly towards them.


oh please man thats just such horse****. I know so many people in that range that think they know struggle but really don't know it....

let them flip the shoes of some other people i know and they'll know how good they go it

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 12:10 PM
i am going to go look for the article i read a week or so ago. I didn't want to bring it in here that day forwhatever reason... it was just something that I found pretty funny

That the Republicans crying baout spent money and their proposal had us spending even more money and givng the rich tax breaks

its **** like that why i hate them. They just use scare tactics and abuse the ******ed of the country (hicks) asnd use god as a weapon. They are just slimeballs
</p>


Scare tactics? You mean like "Republicans want to throw grandma in the street?</p>


Those kinds of scare tactics?</p>


or how about when speaking about tea party members chuck schumer likes to use the words "extreme" and "unpredictable"


Sarah Palin and Ron Paul knid of the leaders or most popular teabaggers

i'd say extreme na unpredictable would be accurate in them

and i actually like Ron Paul
</p>


The tea party was born of the stimulus package. The overreach of the Dem's in 09.</p>


Thank Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi for the tea party. And for all their problems, they are the driving force that is causing our president to advocate spending cuts. Something he otherwise would have never done.</p>

i think your giving the teabaggers too much credit

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 12:11 PM
and pleaaaase shut the **** up about the debt.. its so stupid how u republicans really try to foot us with the bill. The damage Bush did set us bcak way more than 3 years...

And again, i can't wait to look for that article saying that the republican proposed plan would actually increase the debt as well


First off it's bull**** that the republicans even have to come up with this budget...this was supposed to be done months and months ago while the Democrates still had the house...but they simply REFUSED to do a budget...they refused because they knew the HAD to make cuts, but making cuts isn't what their base wants so they just said...nope...we aren't going to do our jobs...cause it'll make us look bad, so now it's on the Republicans to clean up after the Democrats (as usual when it comes to the economy) so we try to put forth a conservative plan, we don't want to raise the debt ceiling unless there are some SOLID promises that we will make cuts to reduce the spending so we aren't just raising it again 6 months down the road.....and because we are asking for just a tiny little bit of fiscal responsibility we are accused of wanting to "throw grandma out on the street" etc etc

The fear mongering...and the out right LIEING this administration does just because we ask that they take some responsibility for THEIR mistakes is astounding....never before has our president been more dishonest in my opinion....I would take Nixon's word over Obama's any day of the week.


lol so basically everything is the democrats fault and nothing bush did set this economy in motion to hwat it is today..

got ya..

it should of all been fixed by obama - because it was possible and logical


this is why i can't stand the republican position
</p>


Bush's fiscal policies were a nightmare. Obama is Bush on steroids.</p>

im sorry but there is no way to get out of this by just not spending...

takes money to make money... u repubs should know this better than anybody

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 12:12 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 12:15 PM
i am going to go look for the article i read a week or so ago. I didn't want to bring it in here that day forwhatever reason... it was just something that I found pretty funny

That the Republicans crying baout spent money and their proposal had us spending even more money and givng the rich tax breaks

its **** like that why i hate them. They just use scare tactics and abuse the ******ed of the country (hicks) asnd use god as a weapon. They are just slimeballs
</p>


Scare tactics? You mean like "Republicans want to throw grandma in the street?</p>


Those kinds of scare tactics?</p>or how about when speaking about tea party members chuck schumer likes to use the words "extreme" and "unpredictable"


Sarah Palin and Ron Paul knid of the leaders or most popular teabaggers

i'd say extreme na unpredictable would be accurate in them

and i actually like Ron Paul
have they thrown pipe bombs in libraries like bams liberal friend? havnt seen any "kill obama" posters at their rallies on tv. i always see them protesting peacefully. where exactly is the extremism and unpredictable behavior? all liberal garbage my friend. im sure their was some violence but its nothing in comparison to what was happening and what was said when bush was pres. a large majory of tea party members areformer dems. its pretty amusing how the left wing media demonize the tea party, palin, and now bachmen. and i dont like either of them.

i like ron paul as well.

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 12:20 PM
and pleaaaase shut the **** up about the debt.. its so stupid how u republicans really try to foot us with the bill. The damage Bush did set us bcak way more than 3 years...

And again, i can't wait to look for that article saying that the republican proposed plan would actually increase the debt as well


First off it's bull**** that the republicans even have to come up with this budget...this was supposed to be done months and months ago while the Democrates still had the house...but they simply REFUSED to do a budget...they refused because they knew the HAD to make cuts, but making cuts isn't what their base wants so they just said...nope...we aren't going to do our jobs...cause it'll make us look bad, so now it's on the Republicans to clean up after the Democrats (as usual when it comes to the economy) so we try to put forth a conservative plan, we don't want to raise the debt ceiling unless there are some SOLID promises that we will make cuts to reduce the spending so we aren't just raising it again 6 months down the road.....and because we are asking for just a tiny little bit of fiscal responsibility we are accused of wanting to "throw grandma out on the street" etc etc

The fear mongering...and the out right LIEING this administration does just because we ask that they take some responsibility for THEIR mistakes is astounding....never before has our president been more dishonest in my opinion....I would take Nixon's word over Obama's any day of the week.


lol so basically everything is the democrats fault and nothing bush did set this economy in motion to hwat it is today..

got ya..

it should of all been fixed by obama - because it was possible and logical


this is why i can't stand the republican position
</P>


Bush's fiscal policies were a nightmare. Obama is Bush on steroids.</P>




im sorry but there is no way to get out of this by just not spending...

takes money to make money... u repubs should know this better than anybody
</P>


It takes opportunity and insentive to create wealth. When an economy grows, deficits are reduced or eliminated. thats what happened in the 90's. We had an explosion of technological innovation, that reduced the cost of doing business, enabling growth without inflation. Combine that with the end of the S &amp; L bailout, and the fall of the Soviet empire and we grew our way to surpluses. We didn't tax our way there.</P>


Enter George Bush. Over a trillion dollar war and an unfunded Medicare drug benefit (all spending).</P>


</P>

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 12:20 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot
im 50/50. i want it to be legal just so cops stop ball busting but i dont want my bud to be taxed. imagine 50 bucks a gram??? that would suck.

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 12:21 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot
</P>


I don't give a ****. People should be allowed to live there own lives.</P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 12:21 PM
i am going to go look for the article i read a week or so ago. I didn't want to bring it in here that day forwhatever reason... it was just something that I found pretty funny

That the Republicans crying baout spent money and their proposal had us spending even more money and givng the rich tax breaks

its **** like that why i hate them. They just use scare tactics and abuse the ******ed of the country (hicks) asnd use god as a weapon. They are just slimeballs
</p>


Scare tactics? You mean like "Republicans want to throw grandma in the street?</p>


Those kinds of scare tactics?</p>or how about when speaking about tea party members chuck schumer likes to use the words "extreme" and "unpredictable"


Sarah Palin and Ron Paul knid of the leaders or most popular teabaggers

i'd say extreme na unpredictable would be accurate in them

and i actually like Ron Paul
have they thrown pipe bombs in libraries like bams liberal friend? havnt seen any "kill obama" posters at their rallies on tv. i always see them protesting peacefully. where exactly is the extremism and unpredictable behavior? all liberal garbage my friend. im sure their was some violence but its nothing in comparison to what was happening and what was said when bush was pres. a large majory of tea party members were former dems. its pretty amusing how the left wing media demonize the tea party, palin, and now bachmen. and i dont like either of them.

i like ron paul as well.


you need to read a little bit more about the teabagger followers

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 12:22 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot
im 50/50. i want it to be legal just so cops stop ball busting but i dont want my bud to be taxed. imagine 50 bucks a gram??? that would suck.


it would never... people can still grow their own they wouldn't make money.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 12:23 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot
</p>


I don't give a ****. People should be allowed to live there own lives.</p>

im not even saying on a personal level

like the facts that it will reduce violence, keep the jails less full (less tax payers), plus basically be a new cash crop

im speaking more laong those lines of the debate

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 12:25 PM
i am going to go look for the article i read a week or so ago. I didn't want to bring it in here that day forwhatever reason... it was just something that I found pretty funny

That the Republicans crying baout spent money and their proposal had us spending even more money and givng the rich tax breaks

its **** like that why i hate them. They just use scare tactics and abuse the ******ed of the country (hicks) asnd use god as a weapon. They are just slimeballs
</p>


Scare tactics? You mean like "Republicans want to throw grandma in the street?</p>


Those kinds of scare tactics?</p>or how about when speaking about tea party members chuck schumer likes to use the words "extreme" and "unpredictable"


Sarah Palin and Ron Paul knid of the leaders or most popular teabaggers

i'd say extreme na unpredictable would be accurate in them

and i actually like Ron Paul
have they thrown pipe bombs in libraries like bams liberal friend? havnt seen any "kill obama" posters at their rallies on tv. i always see them protesting peacefully. where exactly is the extremism and unpredictable behavior? all liberal garbage my friend. im sure their was some violence but its nothing in comparison to what was happening and what was said when bush was pres. a large majory of tea party members were former dems. its pretty amusing how the left wing media demonize the tea party, palin, and now bachmen. and i dont like either of them.

i like ron paul as well.


you need to read a little bit more about the teabagger followers
iv herd. theyre "racists". even though not one racist sign has been seen in 3 years. as far as im concerned theres no such things as the race card anymore. obama and co have beaten it to death.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 12:26 PM
and pleaaaase shut the **** up about the debt.. its so stupid how u republicans really try to foot us with the bill. The damage Bush did set us bcak way more than 3 years...

And again, i can't wait to look for that article saying that the republican proposed plan would actually increase the debt as well


First off it's bull**** that the republicans even have to come up with this budget...this was supposed to be done months and months ago while the Democrates still had the house...but they simply REFUSED to do a budget...they refused because they knew the HAD to make cuts, but making cuts isn't what their base wants so they just said...nope...we aren't going to do our jobs...cause it'll make us look bad, so now it's on the Republicans to clean up after the Democrats (as usual when it comes to the economy) so we try to put forth a conservative plan, we don't want to raise the debt ceiling unless there are some SOLID promises that we will make cuts to reduce the spending so we aren't just raising it again 6 months down the road.....and because we are asking for just a tiny little bit of fiscal responsibility we are accused of wanting to "throw grandma out on the street" etc etc

The fear mongering...and the out right LIEING this administration does just because we ask that they take some responsibility for THEIR mistakes is astounding....never before has our president been more dishonest in my opinion....I would take Nixon's word over Obama's any day of the week.


lol so basically everything is the democrats fault and nothing bush did set this economy in motion to hwat it is today..

got ya..

it should of all been fixed by obama - because it was possible and logical


this is why i can't stand the republican position
</p>


Bush's fiscal policies were a nightmare. Obama is Bush on steroids.</p>




im sorry but there is no way to get out of this by just not spending...

takes money to make money... u repubs should know this better than anybody
</p>


It takes opportunity and insentive to create wealth. When an economy grows, deficits are reduced or eliminated. thats what happened in the 90's. We had an explosion of technological innovation, that reduced the cost of doing business, enabling growth without inflation. Combine that with the end of the S &amp; L bailout, and the fall of the Soviet empire and we grew our way to surpluses. We didn't tax our way there.</p>


Enter George Bush. Over a trillion dollar war and an unfunded Medicare drug benefit (all spending).</p>


</p>

don't forget the mortgages


so you guys know this stuff. This is where I feel like you lose your reality.

You know this stuff, yet you still try and act like Obama built this debt up. This is what i find maddening with you

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 12:30 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot
im 50/50. i want it to be legal just so cops stop ball busting but i dont want my bud to be taxed. imagine 50 bucks a gram??? that would suck.


it would never... people can still grow their own they wouldn't make money.
yea i would hope so. they would probably make a bs law that you have to have a license or something to grow.

byron
07-22-2011, 12:30 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot
as long as they put the proper warning labels on the bagsI seeno problem with it ;)

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 12:32 PM
http://www.swtor.com/media/trailers/return best trailer iv ever seen

i want to be a jedi[:(]

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 12:32 PM
and pleaaaase shut the **** up about the debt.. its so stupid how u republicans really try to foot us with the bill. The damage Bush did set us bcak way more than 3 years...

And again, i can't wait to look for that article saying that the republican proposed plan would actually increase the debt as well


First off it's bull**** that the republicans even have to come up with this budget...this was supposed to be done months and months ago while the Democrates still had the house...but they simply REFUSED to do a budget...they refused because they knew the HAD to make cuts, but making cuts isn't what their base wants so they just said...nope...we aren't going to do our jobs...cause it'll make us look bad, so now it's on the Republicans to clean up after the Democrats (as usual when it comes to the economy) so we try to put forth a conservative plan, we don't want to raise the debt ceiling unless there are some SOLID promises that we will make cuts to reduce the spending so we aren't just raising it again 6 months down the road.....and because we are asking for just a tiny little bit of fiscal responsibility we are accused of wanting to "throw grandma out on the street" etc etc

The fear mongering...and the out right LIEING this administration does just because we ask that they take some responsibility for THEIR mistakes is astounding....never before has our president been more dishonest in my opinion....I would take Nixon's word over Obama's any day of the week.


lol so basically everything is the democrats fault and nothing bush did set this economy in motion to hwat it is today..

got ya..

it should of all been fixed by obama - because it was possible and logical


this is why i can't stand the republican position
</P>


Bush's fiscal policies were a nightmare. Obama is Bush on steroids.</P>




im sorry but there is no way to get out of this by just not spending...

takes money to make money... u repubs should know this better than anybody
</P>


It takes opportunity and insentive to create wealth. When an economy grows, deficits are reduced or eliminated. thats what happened in the 90's. We had an explosion of technological innovation, that reduced the cost of doing business, enabling growth without inflation. Combine that with the end of the S &amp; L bailout, and the fall of the Soviet empire and we grew our way to surpluses. We didn't tax our way there.</P>


Enter George Bush. Over a trillion dollar war and an unfunded Medicare drug benefit (all spending).</P>


</P>




don't forget the mortgages


so you guys know this stuff. This is where I feel like you lose your reality.

You know this stuff, yet you still try and act like Obama built this debt up. This is what i find maddening with you
</P>


The mortgage crisis I am hanging on the Dems. They had this policy of growing home ownership and presided over Fanny and Freddy as they lowered lending standards. The bubble exploded and we all paid the price.</P>


The gov incentivised banks to lower standards since Freddy and Fannie would buy up the mortgages.</P>


Until the 90's, you couldn't get a mortgage essentially without 20% down. When the Feds offered to encourage home ownership, they lowered the standards. Even threatened banks to take low income loans.</P>


If the government had stayed out of it, there never would have been a housing bubble. Banks are actually very conservative. They don't want to lose money. So the government took away that risk for them.</P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 12:33 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot
im 50/50. i want it to be legal just so cops stop ball busting but i dont want my bud to be taxed. imagine 50 bucks a gram??? that would suck.


it would never... people can still grow their own they wouldn't make money.
yea i would hope so. they would probably make a bs law that you have to have a license or something to grow.


even if they tried that if its legal that means that laws would obviously be looser

it doesn't stop anybody now that its completely illegal lol

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 12:36 PM
and pleaaaase shut the **** up about the debt.. its so stupid how u republicans really try to foot us with the bill. The damage Bush did set us bcak way more than 3 years...

And again, i can't wait to look for that article saying that the republican proposed plan would actually increase the debt as well


First off it's bull**** that the republicans even have to come up with this budget...this was supposed to be done months and months ago while the Democrates still had the house...but they simply REFUSED to do a budget...they refused because they knew the HAD to make cuts, but making cuts isn't what their base wants so they just said...nope...we aren't going to do our jobs...cause it'll make us look bad, so now it's on the Republicans to clean up after the Democrats (as usual when it comes to the economy) so we try to put forth a conservative plan, we don't want to raise the debt ceiling unless there are some SOLID promises that we will make cuts to reduce the spending so we aren't just raising it again 6 months down the road.....and because we are asking for just a tiny little bit of fiscal responsibility we are accused of wanting to "throw grandma out on the street" etc etc

The fear mongering...and the out right LIEING this administration does just because we ask that they take some responsibility for THEIR mistakes is astounding....never before has our president been more dishonest in my opinion....I would take Nixon's word over Obama's any day of the week.


lol so basically everything is the democrats fault and nothing bush did set this economy in motion to hwat it is today..

got ya..

it should of all been fixed by obama - because it was possible and logical


this is why i can't stand the republican position
</p>


Bush's fiscal policies were a nightmare. Obama is Bush on steroids.</p>




im sorry but there is no way to get out of this by just not spending...

takes money to make money... u repubs should know this better than anybody
</p>


It takes opportunity and insentive to create wealth. When an economy grows, deficits are reduced or eliminated. thats what happened in the 90's. We had an explosion of technological innovation, that reduced the cost of doing business, enabling growth without inflation. Combine that with the end of the S &amp; L bailout, and the fall of the Soviet empire and we grew our way to surpluses. We didn't tax our way there.</p>


Enter George Bush. Over a trillion dollar war and an unfunded Medicare drug benefit (all spending).</p>


</p>




don't forget the mortgages


so you guys know this stuff. This is where I feel like you lose your reality.

You know this stuff, yet you still try and act like Obama built this debt up. This is what i find maddening with you
</p>


The mortgage crisis I am hanging on the Dems. They had this policy of growing home ownership and presided over Fanny and Freddy as they lowered lending standards. The bubble exploded and we all paid the price.</p>


The gov incentivised banks to lower standards since Freddy and Fannie would buy up the mortgages.</p>


Until the 90's, you couldn't get a mortgage essentially without 20% down. When the Feds offered to encourage home ownership, they lowered the standards. Even threatened banks to take low income loans.</p>


If the government had stayed out of it, there never would have been a housing bubble. Banks are actually very conservative. They don't want to lose money. So the government took away that risk for them.</p>

yea but they started really taking those crazy loans in 2000

that was bush era

nothing wrong wtih owning homes in alot of cases. People pay a mortgage in rent anyway and everybody lives somewhere

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 12:37 PM
and pleaaaase shut the **** up about the debt.. its so stupid how u republicans really try to foot us with the bill. The damage Bush did set us bcak way more than 3 years...

And again, i can't wait to look for that article saying that the republican proposed plan would actually increase the debt as well


First off it's bull**** that the republicans even have to come up with this budget...this was supposed to be done months and months ago while the Democrates still had the house...but they simply REFUSED to do a budget...they refused because they knew the HAD to make cuts, but making cuts isn't what their base wants so they just said...nope...we aren't going to do our jobs...cause it'll make us look bad, so now it's on the Republicans to clean up after the Democrats (as usual when it comes to the economy) so we try to put forth a conservative plan, we don't want to raise the debt ceiling unless there are some SOLID promises that we will make cuts to reduce the spending so we aren't just raising it again 6 months down the road.....and because we are asking for just a tiny little bit of fiscal responsibility we are accused of wanting to "throw grandma out on the street" etc etc

The fear mongering...and the out right LIEING this administration does just because we ask that they take some responsibility for THEIR mistakes is astounding....never before has our president been more dishonest in my opinion....I would take Nixon's word over Obama's any day of the week.


lol so basically everything is the democrats fault and nothing bush did set this economy in motion to hwat it is today..

got ya..

it should of all been fixed by obama - because it was possible and logical


this is why i can't stand the republican position
</P>


Bush's fiscal policies were a nightmare. Obama is Bush on steroids.</P>




im sorry but there is no way to get out of this by just not spending...

takes money to make money... u repubs should know this better than anybody
</P>


It takes opportunity and insentive to create wealth. When an economy grows, deficits are reduced or eliminated. thats what happened in the 90's. We had an explosion of technological innovation, that reduced the cost of doing business, enabling growth without inflation. Combine that with the end of the S &amp; L bailout, and the fall of the Soviet empire and we grew our way to surpluses. We didn't tax our way there.</P>


Enter George Bush. Over a trillion dollar war and an unfunded Medicare drug benefit (all spending).</P>


</P>




don't forget the mortgages


so you guys know this stuff. This is where I feel like you lose your reality.

You know this stuff, yet you still try and act like Obama built this debt up. This is what i find maddening with you
</P>


Bush built plenty of debt. Mostly fueled by the wars and the Medicare drug benifit. His largest deficit was $650B in 2008. Obama' first two annual deficits totaled over $3 trillion. ($1.5 trillion plus each year)</P>


Now if you revoke the Bush era tax cuts for all those making over $250,000, you reduce the deficit by $40 billion/year. ($400 billion over 10 years forcast by the CBO) </P>


That would drop the deficit from $1.5 trillion to $1.46 trillion. Then what are you going to do Matt?</P>

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 12:41 PM
and pleaaaase shut the **** up about the debt.. its so stupid how u republicans really try to foot us with the bill. The damage Bush did set us bcak way more than 3 years...

And again, i can't wait to look for that article saying that the republican proposed plan would actually increase the debt as well


First off it's bull**** that the republicans even have to come up with this budget...this was supposed to be done months and months ago while the Democrates still had the house...but they simply REFUSED to do a budget...they refused because they knew the HAD to make cuts, but making cuts isn't what their base wants so they just said...nope...we aren't going to do our jobs...cause it'll make us look bad, so now it's on the Republicans to clean up after the Democrats (as usual when it comes to the economy) so we try to put forth a conservative plan, we don't want to raise the debt ceiling unless there are some SOLID promises that we will make cuts to reduce the spending so we aren't just raising it again 6 months down the road.....and because we are asking for just a tiny little bit of fiscal responsibility we are accused of wanting to "throw grandma out on the street" etc etc

The fear mongering...and the out right LIEING this administration does just because we ask that they take some responsibility for THEIR mistakes is astounding....never before has our president been more dishonest in my opinion....I would take Nixon's word over Obama's any day of the week.


lol so basically everything is the democrats fault and nothing bush did set this economy in motion to hwat it is today..

got ya..

it should of all been fixed by obama - because it was possible and logical


this is why i can't stand the republican position
</P>


Bush's fiscal policies were a nightmare. Obama is Bush on steroids.</P>




im sorry but there is no way to get out of this by just not spending...

takes money to make money... u repubs should know this better than anybody
</P>


It takes opportunity and insentive to create wealth. When an economy grows, deficits are reduced or eliminated. thats what happened in the 90's. We had an explosion of technological innovation, that reduced the cost of doing business, enabling growth without inflation. Combine that with the end of the S &amp; L bailout, and the fall of the Soviet empire and we grew our way to surpluses. We didn't tax our way there.</P>


Enter George Bush. Over a trillion dollar war and an unfunded Medicare drug benefit (all spending).</P>


</P>




don't forget the mortgages


so you guys know this stuff. This is where I feel like you lose your reality.

You know this stuff, yet you still try and act like Obama built this debt up. This is what i find maddening with you
</P>


The mortgage crisis I am hanging on the Dems. They had this policy of growing home ownership and presided over Fanny and Freddy as they lowered lending standards. The bubble exploded and we all paid the price.</P>


The gov incentivised banks to lower standards since Freddy and Fannie would buy up the mortgages.</P>


Until the 90's, you couldn't get a mortgage essentially without 20% down. When the Feds offered to encourage home ownership, they lowered the standards. Even threatened banks to take low income loans.</P>


If the government had stayed out of it, there never would have been a housing bubble. Banks are actually very conservative. They don't want to lose money. So the government took away that risk for them.</P>




yea but they started really taking those crazy loans in 2000

that was bush era

nothing wrong wtih owning homes in alot of cases. People pay a mortgage in rent anyway and everybody lives somewhere


</P>


It artificially built up home values, causing banks to give riskier and riskier loans. All supported by Fanny and Freddy. Repulicans warned throughout the first term of the Bush administration and the Dem response from Barnie Frank (speaking of anal oozing) was "there is no problem with Fanny and Freddy". Why? Freddy and Fanny were the largest contributors of Democratic candidates. Just as Wall street tends to support the GOP, Fanny and Freddy owned the Dems.</P>


Ron Paul in a speach in 2002 actually warned of the exact crisis that occured in 2008.</P>


http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/ron-paul-on-the-housing-bubble-july-2002/</P>

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 12:44 PM
and pleaaaase shut the **** up about the debt.. its so stupid how u republicans really try to foot us with the bill. The damage Bush did set us bcak way more than 3 years...

And again, i can't wait to look for that article saying that the republican proposed plan would actually increase the debt as well


First off it's bull**** that the republicans even have to come up with this budget...this was supposed to be done months and months ago while the Democrates still had the house...but they simply REFUSED to do a budget...they refused because they knew the HAD to make cuts, but making cuts isn't what their base wants so they just said...nope...we aren't going to do our jobs...cause it'll make us look bad, so now it's on the Republicans to clean up after the Democrats (as usual when it comes to the economy) so we try to put forth a conservative plan, we don't want to raise the debt ceiling unless there are some SOLID promises that we will make cuts to reduce the spending so we aren't just raising it again 6 months down the road.....and because we are asking for just a tiny little bit of fiscal responsibility we are accused of wanting to "throw grandma out on the street" etc etc

The fear mongering...and the out right LIEING this administration does just because we ask that they take some responsibility for THEIR mistakes is astounding....never before has our president been more dishonest in my opinion....I would take Nixon's word over Obama's any day of the week.


lol so basically everything is the democrats fault and nothing bush did set this economy in motion to hwat it is today..

got ya..

it should of all been fixed by obama - because it was possible and logical


this is why i can't stand the republican position
</p>


Bush's fiscal policies were a nightmare. Obama is Bush on steroids.</p>




im sorry but there is no way to get out of this by just not spending...

takes money to make money... u repubs should know this better than anybody
</p>


It takes opportunity and insentive to create wealth. When an economy grows, deficits are reduced or eliminated. thats what happened in the 90's. We had an explosion of technological innovation, that reduced the cost of doing business, enabling growth without inflation. Combine that with the end of the S &amp; L bailout, and the fall of the Soviet empire and we grew our way to surpluses. We didn't tax our way there.</p>


Enter George Bush. Over a trillion dollar war and an unfunded Medicare drug benefit (all spending).</p>


</p>




don't forget the mortgages


so you guys know this stuff. This is where I feel like you lose your reality.

You know this stuff, yet you still try and act like Obama built this debt up. This is what i find maddening with you
</p>


The mortgage crisis I am hanging on the Dems. They had this policy of growing home ownership and presided over Fanny and Freddy as they lowered lending standards. The bubble exploded and we all paid the price.</p>


The gov incentivised banks to lower standards since Freddy and Fannie would buy up the mortgages.</p>


Until the 90's, you couldn't get a mortgage essentially without 20% down. When the Feds offered to encourage home ownership, they lowered the standards. Even threatened banks to take low income loans.</p>


If the government had stayed out of it, there never would have been a housing bubble. Banks are actually very conservative. They don't want to lose money. So the government took away that risk for them.</p>

yea but they started really taking those crazy loans in 2000

that was bush era

nothing wrong wtih owning homes in alot of cases. People pay a mortgage in rent anyway and everybody lives somewhere


the loans were chuck schumers idea.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 12:49 PM
and pleaaaase shut the **** up about the debt.. its so stupid how u republicans really try to foot us with the bill. The damage Bush did set us bcak way more than 3 years...

And again, i can't wait to look for that article saying that the republican proposed plan would actually increase the debt as well


First off it's bull**** that the republicans even have to come up with this budget...this was supposed to be done months and months ago while the Democrates still had the house...but they simply REFUSED to do a budget...they refused because they knew the HAD to make cuts, but making cuts isn't what their base wants so they just said...nope...we aren't going to do our jobs...cause it'll make us look bad, so now it's on the Republicans to clean up after the Democrats (as usual when it comes to the economy) so we try to put forth a conservative plan, we don't want to raise the debt ceiling unless there are some SOLID promises that we will make cuts to reduce the spending so we aren't just raising it again 6 months down the road.....and because we are asking for just a tiny little bit of fiscal responsibility we are accused of wanting to "throw grandma out on the street" etc etc

The fear mongering...and the out right LIEING this administration does just because we ask that they take some responsibility for THEIR mistakes is astounding....never before has our president been more dishonest in my opinion....I would take Nixon's word over Obama's any day of the week.


lol so basically everything is the democrats fault and nothing bush did set this economy in motion to hwat it is today..

got ya..

it should of all been fixed by obama - because it was possible and logical


this is why i can't stand the republican position
</p>


Bush's fiscal policies were a nightmare. Obama is Bush on steroids.</p>




im sorry but there is no way to get out of this by just not spending...

takes money to make money... u repubs should know this better than anybody
</p>


It takes opportunity and insentive to create wealth. When an economy grows, deficits are reduced or eliminated. thats what happened in the 90's. We had an explosion of technological innovation, that reduced the cost of doing business, enabling growth without inflation. Combine that with the end of the S &amp; L bailout, and the fall of the Soviet empire and we grew our way to surpluses. We didn't tax our way there.</p>


Enter George Bush. Over a trillion dollar war and an unfunded Medicare drug benefit (all spending).</p>


</p>




don't forget the mortgages


so you guys know this stuff. This is where I feel like you lose your reality.

You know this stuff, yet you still try and act like Obama built this debt up. This is what i find maddening with you
</p>


The mortgage crisis I am hanging on the Dems. They had this policy of growing home ownership and presided over Fanny and Freddy as they lowered lending standards. The bubble exploded and we all paid the price.</p>


The gov incentivised banks to lower standards since Freddy and Fannie would buy up the mortgages.</p>


Until the 90's, you couldn't get a mortgage essentially without 20% down. When the Feds offered to encourage home ownership, they lowered the standards. Even threatened banks to take low income loans.</p>


If the government had stayed out of it, there never would have been a housing bubble. Banks are actually very conservative. They don't want to lose money. So the government took away that risk for them.</p>




yea but they started really taking those crazy loans in 2000

that was bush era

nothing wrong wtih owning homes in alot of cases. People pay a mortgage in rent anyway and everybody lives somewhere


</p>


It artificially built up home values, causing banks to give riskier and riskier loans. All supported by Fanny and Freddy. Repulicans warned throughout the first term of the Bush administration and the Dem response from Barnie Frank (speaking of anal oozing) was "there is no problem with Fanny and Freddy". Why? Freddy and Fanny were the largest contributors of Democratic candidates. Just as Wall street tends to support the GOP, Fanny and Freddy owned the Dems.</p>


Ron Paul in a speach in 2002 actually warned of the exact crisis that occured in 2008.</p>


http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/ron-paul-on-the-housing-bubble-july-2002/</p>

how can u seperate from bush? He was republican...

this is just like another way for republican to be the cause of something but yet still try and find a way to not be blamed for it.

Schumar was out of office in 1999. Whethe rit was his idea or not is moot since the buying of these ridic mortgages happened in 2000 and beyond

bigblue4417
07-22-2011, 12:55 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot
im 50/50. i want it to be legal just so cops stop ball busting but i dont want my bud to be taxed. imagine 50 bucks a gram??? that would suck.

Yeah, but imagine how good it would be. You might only need a hit or 2. I would pay whatever to be able to just burn whenever I wanted.

I am always curious about the next step. If it is legalized then do jobs test for it and not let you work there if you are stoned?

What happens if you get caught dealing behind the gov?

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 12:56 PM
and pleaaaase shut the **** up about the debt.. its so stupid how u republicans really try to foot us with the bill. The damage Bush did set us bcak way more than 3 years...

And again, i can't wait to look for that article saying that the republican proposed plan would actually increase the debt as well


First off it's bull**** that the republicans even have to come up with this budget...this was supposed to be done months and months ago while the Democrates still had the house...but they simply REFUSED to do a budget...they refused because they knew the HAD to make cuts, but making cuts isn't what their base wants so they just said...nope...we aren't going to do our jobs...cause it'll make us look bad, so now it's on the Republicans to clean up after the Democrats (as usual when it comes to the economy) so we try to put forth a conservative plan, we don't want to raise the debt ceiling unless there are some SOLID promises that we will make cuts to reduce the spending so we aren't just raising it again 6 months down the road.....and because we are asking for just a tiny little bit of fiscal responsibility we are accused of wanting to "throw grandma out on the street" etc etc

The fear mongering...and the out right LIEING this administration does just because we ask that they take some responsibility for THEIR mistakes is astounding....never before has our president been more dishonest in my opinion....I would take Nixon's word over Obama's any day of the week.


lol so basically everything is the democrats fault and nothing bush did set this economy in motion to hwat it is today..

got ya..

it should of all been fixed by obama - because it was possible and logical


this is why i can't stand the republican position
</P>


Bush's fiscal policies were a nightmare. Obama is Bush on steroids.</P>




im sorry but there is no way to get out of this by just not spending...

takes money to make money... u repubs should know this better than anybody
</P>


It takes opportunity and insentive to create wealth. When an economy grows, deficits are reduced or eliminated. thats what happened in the 90's. We had an explosion of technological innovation, that reduced the cost of doing business, enabling growth without inflation. Combine that with the end of the S &amp; L bailout, and the fall of the Soviet empire and we grew our way to surpluses. We didn't tax our way there.</P>


Enter George Bush. Over a trillion dollar war and an unfunded Medicare drug benefit (all spending).</P>


</P>




don't forget the mortgages


so you guys know this stuff. This is where I feel like you lose your reality.

You know this stuff, yet you still try and act like Obama built this debt up. This is what i find maddening with you
</P>


The mortgage crisis I am hanging on the Dems. They had this policy of growing home ownership and presided over Fanny and Freddy as they lowered lending standards. The bubble exploded and we all paid the price.</P>


The gov incentivised banks to lower standards since Freddy and Fannie would buy up the mortgages.</P>


Until the 90's, you couldn't get a mortgage essentially without 20% down. When the Feds offered to encourage home ownership, they lowered the standards. Even threatened banks to take low income loans.</P>


If the government had stayed out of it, there never would have been a housing bubble. Banks are actually very conservative. They don't want to lose money. So the government took away that risk for them.</P>




yea but they started really taking those crazy loans in 2000

that was bush era

nothing wrong wtih owning homes in alot of cases. People pay a mortgage in rent anyway and everybody lives somewhere


</P>


It artificially built up home values, causing banks to give riskier and riskier loans. All supported by Fanny and Freddy. Repulicans warned throughout the first term of the Bush administration and the Dem response from Barnie Frank (speaking of anal oozing) was "there is no problem with Fanny and Freddy". Why? Freddy and Fanny were the largest contributors of Democratic candidates. Just as Wall street tends to support the GOP, Fanny and Freddy owned the Dems.</P>


Ron Paul in a speach in 2002 actually warned of the exact crisis that occured in 2008.</P>


http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/ron-paul-on-the-housing-bubble-july-2002/</P>




how can u seperate from bush? He was republican...

this is just like another way for republican to be the cause of something but yet still try and find a way to not be blamed for it.

Schumar was out of office in 1999. Whethe rit was his idea or not is moot since the buying of these ridic mortgages happened in 2000 and beyond
</P>


I certainly don't give Bush a pass on much, not even this. But this was a plan hatched by the Dems. It was all very "good intentions" oriented. Lets help out people of lesser income to own homes. It sounds great. But it created a disaster because it manipulated market conditions, causing an inevidable crash in the housing market. Hurting the very people they were trying to help. Thats the "good intentions" trap I was talking about.</P>


Did Bush enjoys the trumped up economic growth? Certainly. He's a politician. But this was a crisis created by Fanny and Freddy. And they financed Democratic campaigns to perpetuate it.</P>


Repubs contantly complained about those two instututions during the Bush years.</P>


And Chuck Schumer is still in office.</P>


If your talking about Clinton, he left office Jan. 20, 2001.</P>


</P>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 01:09 PM
http://www.americancurvesmag.com/nooner/images/AprilCheryse.jpg

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 01:10 PM
<h1>Speakin of:
</h1><h1>Colleges high on pot laws (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/colleges_high_on_pot_laws_PgP5noT08rkSW0xxLLkWtN)</h1>

<p class="byline">AP</p>
<p class="date updated">
Last Updated:
2:50 AM, July 22, 2011</p>
<p class="date posted">
Posted:
2:50 AM, July 22, 2011</p>



<span></span>
<div style="float:left;margin-top:5px">
<div style="float:left">
</div>
<div style="float:left">
<div class="twitter_share">

</div>
</div>
</div>


<div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style legacy">
<span class="at300bs at15nc at15t_email"></span> (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/colleges_high_on_pot_laws_PgP5noT08rkSW0xxLLkWtN#)
<span class="at300bs at15nc at15t_facebook"></span> (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/colleges_high_on_pot_laws_PgP5noT08rkSW0xxLLkWtN#)

<span class="at300bs at15nc at15t_expanded"></span>More (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&amp;username=nypost)
http://www.nypost.com/rw/SysConfig/WebPortal/nypost/images/icon_print.gif Print (http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/local/colleges_high_on_pot_laws_PgP5noT08rkSW0xxLLkWtN)
</div>


<div class="story_body">





HARTFORD, Conn. -- Some state colleges and universities in
Connecticut are looking into easing their marijuana regulations now that
possession of a small amount of pot has been downgraded to a violation
about as serious as a parking ticket. </p>

The University of
Connecticut has set up a panel of administrators and students to
reconsider a policy that requires police to be notified about marijuana
on campus. </p>

While Connecticut now punishes small marijuana
violators with a $150 fine, the federal government is keeping a hard
line against a drug that it deems dangerous and addictive. </p></div>
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/colleges_high_on_pot_laws_PgP5noT08rkSW0xxLLkWtN#i xzz1Sr4bGpp4

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 01:11 PM
Regarding today nooner: I know she's just another blonde bimbo, but her waist/hip to rack ratio is SWEET

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 01:13 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot
im 50/50. i want it to be legal just so cops stop ball busting but i dont want my bud to be taxed. imagine 50 bucks a gram??? that would suck.

Yeah, but imagine how good it would be. You might only need a hit or 2. I would pay whatever to be able to just burn whenever I wanted.

I am always curious about the next step. If it is legalized then do jobs test for it and not let you work there if you are stoned?

What happens if you get caught dealing behind the gov?


there would definitly be lawsuits every where

discrimination. They would have to make drug tests that don't show THC

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 01:15 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot
im 50/50. i want it to be legal just so cops stop ball busting but i dont want my bud to be taxed. imagine 50 bucks a gram??? that would suck.

Yeah, but imagine how good it would be. You might only need a hit or 2. I would pay whatever to be able to just burn whenever I wanted.

I am always curious about the next step. If it is legalized then do jobs test for it and not let you work there if you are stoned?

What happens if you get caught dealing behind the gov?


there would definitly be lawsuits every where

discrimination. They would have to make drug tests that don't show THC
I heard a report the other day that some employers were firing employees for smoking on their own time. That's zero tolerance

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 01:17 PM
<h1>Speakin of:
</h1><h1>Colleges high on pot laws (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/colleges_high_on_pot_laws_PgP5noT08rkSW0xxLLkWtN)</h1>

<p class="byline">AP</p>
<p class="date updated">
Last Updated:
2:50 AM, July 22, 2011</p>
<p class="date posted">
Posted:
2:50 AM, July 22, 2011</p>



<span></span>
<div style="float: left; margin-top: 5px;">
<div style="float: left;">
</div>
<div style="float: left;">
<div class="twitter_share">

</div>
</div>
</div>


<div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style legacy">
<span class="at300bs at15nc at15t_email"></span> (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/colleges_high_on_pot_laws_PgP5noT08rkSW0xxLLkWtN#)
<span class="at300bs at15nc at15t_facebook"></span> (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/colleges_high_on_pot_laws_PgP5noT08rkSW0xxLLkWtN#)

<span class="at300bs at15nc at15t_expanded"></span>More (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&amp;username=nypost)
http://www.nypost.com/rw/SysConfig/WebPortal/nypost/images/icon_print.gif Print (http://www.nypost.com/f/print/news/local/colleges_high_on_pot_laws_PgP5noT08rkSW0xxLLkWtN)
</div>


<div class="story_body">





HARTFORD, Conn. -- Some state colleges and universities in
Connecticut are looking into easing their marijuana regulations now that
possession of a small amount of pot has been downgraded to a violation
about as serious as a parking ticket. </p>

The University of
Connecticut has set up a panel of administrators and students to
reconsider a policy that requires police to be notified about marijuana
on campus. </p>

While Connecticut now punishes small marijuana
violators with a $150 fine, the federal government is keeping a hard
line against a drug that it deems dangerous and addictive. </p></div>
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/colleges_high_on_pot_laws_PgP5noT08rkSW0xxLLkWtN#i xzz1Sr4bGpp4


kill the feds

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 01:18 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot
im 50/50. i want it to be legal just so cops stop ball busting but i dont want my bud to be taxed. imagine 50 bucks a gram??? that would suck.

Yeah, but imagine how good it would be. You might only need a hit or 2. I would pay whatever to be able to just burn whenever I wanted.

I am always curious about the next step. If it is legalized then do jobs test for it and not let you work there if you are stoned?

What happens if you get caught dealing behind the gov?


there would definitly be lawsuits every where

discrimination. They would have to make drug tests that don't show THC
I heard a report the other day that some employers were firing employees for smoking on their own time. That's zero tolerance


im sure there will be monster lawsuits there

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 01:19 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot
im 50/50. i want it to be legal just so cops stop ball busting but i dont want my bud to be taxed. imagine 50 bucks a gram??? that would suck.

<u>Yeah, but imagine how good it would be. You might only need a hit or 2. I would pay whatever to be able to just burn whenever I wanted. </u>

I am always curious about the next step. If it is legalized then do jobs test for it and not let you work there if you are stoned?

What happens if you get caught dealing behind the gov?
thats true. if they were supplying that "g13" or whatever people call it then yes id pay whatever. but im sure theres going to be people that say "there too much thc in that species of pot" i hope not. if it is legalized i hope the gov doesnt get to involved. good question about the drug tests for jobs.

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 01:19 PM
Latest on the lockout progress(it appears that the process to re-certify is not going to stop lifting the lockout tomorrow--PROVIDING, the players reps sign off on the agreement today):



It was speculated that the players could do their signatures
electronically to re-certify the union, but Clayton reports that the
NFLPA wants players to hand sign cards. Still, that might not take very
long to complete if everyone makes the appropriate arrangments:</p>
<blockquote>


If the NFL player representatives vote Friday to approve terms of the
agreement, the NFLPA wants the league to lift the lockout effective
Saturday and have union cards at team facilities for players to sign.</p>
</blockquote>


NFLPA president Kevin Mawae (http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/players/2870/kevin-mawae) released a statement (http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/07/22/nflpa-will-remain-quiet-friday-out-of-respect-to-k) saying that the NFLPA will not release any more statements today, as they mourn the death of Robert Kraft's wife. That doesn't mean they aren't working, as Mawae offers these words of encouragment:</p>
<blockquote>


"Player leadership is discussing the most recent written proposal
with the NFL, which includes a settlement agreement, deal terms and the
right process for addressing recertification."</p>
</blockquote>


As always, we'll try to keep you posted with all of the latest on the lockout.</p>


</p>

<a href="http://">http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2011/7/22/2288605/nfl-lockout-player-representatives-could-vote-today
</a></p>

shocknaweny
07-22-2011, 01:19 PM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</P>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</P>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</P>


yea the players are suppose to vote or whatever today. players are twittering theyre getting screwed. waaaaaaa shut up and ****ing play *****.
</P>


</P>


do the players just need the majority of the 1900 ???</P>


if that's the case than I would feel good about a vote cause I think the lower -end to middle tier guys just want a fair deal and to get back to work !</P>

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 01:22 PM
how can u seperate from bush? He was republican...

I don't want to speak for Morehead, but I know I didn't particularly like Bush, I think you have me (and probably Morehead) confused, you see us as like hard line Republicans, I don't really consider myself a Republican....I'm Conservative there's a difference, now republicans at their core are SUPPOSED to follow many conservative beliefs....but they've been getting away from it more and more recently, Bush was not very conservative....just because he was a republican I'm not going to support him.

That said, as Morehead mentioned...

Bush's LARGEST deficit was 650 billion dollars, Obama's first two years were pushing 3 TRILLION

and yet BUSH is somehow blamed for it...consistently....it's bull****, bush's entire 8 years in office was a drop in the bucket of the deficit when compared to Obama over 2 years.

I didn't think Bush did a great job.....but you can almost make an argument that Obama is systematically TRYING to kill the economy in our country....he's on another level...it's insanity.

shocknaweny
07-22-2011, 01:22 PM
Can we take a vote on when we draw the names out of the Wendys bag for FF draft positon...I say July 29th....</P>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 01:23 PM
Let's put an end to this already. If the Monday night game (30 days from today) vs Chicago gets cancelled I am going to be pissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5Hz8mOPVDB5KsUlzC7cYtSwTCSWUtE EIrrtUX2W1yqwAi98Ix


what a ****tease yesterday

apparently the owners pulled some bull****
</p>


The owners did nothing. All that happened is that they agreed on a system to compensate other teams as a part of revenue sharing. Thats strictly internal between the owners. With the 90% minimum each team has to make sure they have the revenues to pay their players.</p>


This is just union bluster. Just watch, they will approve the deal today.</p>


yea the players are suppose to vote or whatever today. players are twittering theyre getting screwed. waaaaaaa shut up and ****ing play *****.
</p>


</p>


do the players just need the majority of the 1900 ???</p>


if that's the case than I would feel good about a vote cause I think the lower -end to middle tier guys just want a fair deal and to get back to work !</p>Yep majority rules

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 01:26 PM
<h1 class="title">The Lockout Is Not Quite Over Yet - Comments From Packers President MarkMurphy

</h1>
<p class="byline">

http://cdn3.sbnation.com/profile_images/2556/AcmePackingCo_tiny.jpg by Brandon (http://www.sbnation.com/users/Brandon) on Jul 22, 2011 11:55 AM CDT (http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2011/7/22/2288710/the-lockout-is-not-quite-over-yet-comments-from-packers-president)


in Green Bay Packers News (http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/section/news)</p>
<div class="photo-tpl photo-tpl-banner">

http://cdn1.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/1623151/82536_Wall_Street_Green_Bay_Packers_Football.jpg (http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/photos/the-lockout-is-not-quite-over-yet-comments-from-packers-president)





</div>








As I'm sure you saw everywhere, the Green Bay Packers (http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/teams/green-bay-packers) and every other NFL team (except the comical Raiders (http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/teams/oakland-raiders))
voted in favor of a new labor agreement, and now it's up to the
players. There was a little concern at first because the owners ratified
a final agreement that the players had never seen (http://twitter.com/#%21/mortreport/status/94216064858210304).
I wasn't expecting the owners to pull a fast one, but it's smart on the
players part to re-read the agreement before voting. Right now there is
optimism that all thefinal details will be worked out over the weekend (http://twitter.com/#%21/mortreport/status/94428560835624960).

Team president Mark Murphy just sounds like he wants the lockout over, and I can't say I blame him. FromNational Football Post (http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Packers-president-Owners-are-done-negotiating.html):</p>

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 01:27 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot

I'm for legalizing ALL drugs, this way they would be controlled, not cut with even more dangerous chemicals, you'd know what you were getting and therefore it would be safer, It would remove the "taboo" of many drugs, kids generally get into it BECAUSE it's illegal and it's dangerous...to be cool etc etc.....when you can just go to the corner store and pick it up it'd be less popular.

Most importantly, the Government could TAX the sale of these drugs, which would be a serious boon to revenue.

JPizzack
07-22-2011, 01:30 PM
Regarding today nooner: I know she's just another blonde bimbo, but her waist/hip to rack ratio is SWEET
</P>


my kind of girl....

Well, I dont care if shes blonde or not...but she looks tiny, and slaaaaammin'
</P>

ny06
07-22-2011, 01:30 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot

<FONT color=#0000ff>I'm for legalizing ALL drugs</FONT>, this way they would be controlled, not cut with even more dangerous chemicals, you'd know what you were getting and therefore it would be safer, It would remove the "taboo" of many drugs, kids generally get into it BECAUSE it's illegal and it's dangerous...to be cool etc etc.....when you can just go to the corner store and pick it up it'd be less popular.

Most importantly, the Government could TAX the sale of these drugs, which would be a serious boon to revenue.
</P>


legalizing marijuana is one thing, but to legalize all drugs is insaine. </P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 01:32 PM
Can we take a vote on when we draw the names out of the Wendys bag for FF draft positon...I say July 29th....</p>

gonna do it aug 6th at themeadowlands race track

daven and blondie will be there

and obviously anybody else thats in the area and would like to bet on some ponies

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 01:37 PM
how can u seperate from bush? He was republican...

I don't want to speak for Morehead, but I know I didn't particularly like Bush, I think you have me (and probably Morehead) confused, you see us as like hard line Republicans, I don't really consider myself a Republican....I'm Conservative there's a difference, now republicans at their core are SUPPOSED to follow many conservative beliefs....but they've been getting away from it more and more recently, Bush was not very conservative....just because he was a republican I'm not going to support him.

That said, as Morehead mentioned...

Bush's LARGEST deficit was 650 billion dollars, Obama's first two years were pushing 3 TRILLION

and yet BUSH is somehow blamed for it...consistently....it's bull****, bush's entire 8 years in office was a drop in the bucket of the deficit when compared to Obama over 2 years.

I didn't think Bush did a great job.....but you can almost make an argument that Obama is systematically TRYING to kill the economy in our country....he's on another level...it's insanity.
</P>


Well I'm a small government conservative. And that goes for both fiscal and social policy.</P>


I don't like most politicians, regardless of party. The GOP more closely reflects my fiscal policy so I tend to support republicans. </P>


The fiscal policies of the current Democratic party are so off the wall, so in conflict with what we've learned with 235 years of unmatched prosperity, it is impossible to explain. The policies of the Kennedy administration are very similar to the current Republican party. The Dems have gone off the reservation over the past 50 years. They use divisive tactics that try to drive a wedge between their view of the social classes. And listening to Matt, I can see that he has fallen for it hook, line and sinker.</P>


The GOP uses their own brand of divisiveness, but not to the scale of the Dems.</P>


What it comes down to is that Republicans believe in people, and Dems believe in government.</P>

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 01:37 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot

<font color="#0000ff">I'm for legalizing ALL drugs</font>, this way they would be controlled, not cut with even more dangerous chemicals, you'd know what you were getting and therefore it would be safer, It would remove the "taboo" of many drugs, kids generally get into it BECAUSE it's illegal and it's dangerous...to be cool etc etc.....when you can just go to the corner store and pick it up it'd be less popular.

Most importantly, the Government could TAX the sale of these drugs, which would be a serious boon to revenue.
</p>


legalizing marijuana is one thing, but to legalize all drugs is insaine. </p>

For what reason? It's not like they don't exist here because they are Illegal....people still do them, the problem is they do ****, shady dealers add all types of chemicals to make higher profits, in order to find it you have to deal with dangerous people and situations....legalizing these substances would require there to be some "control" over what goes into it and therefore make it safer....PLUS The Government could Tax the product, which would definitely help out in our current situation.

ny06
07-22-2011, 01:40 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot

<FONT color=#0000ff>I'm for legalizing ALL drugs</FONT>, this way they would be controlled, not cut with even more dangerous chemicals, you'd know what you were getting and therefore it would be safer, It would remove the "taboo" of many drugs, kids generally get into it BECAUSE it's illegal and it's dangerous...to be cool etc etc.....when you can just go to the corner store and pick it up it'd be less popular.

Most importantly, the Government could TAX the sale of these drugs, which would be a serious boon to revenue.
</P>


legalizing marijuana is one thing, but to legalize all drugs is insaine. </P>




For what reason? It's not like they don't exist here because they are Illegal....people still do them, the problem is they do ****, shady dealers add all types of chemicals to make higher profits, in order to find it you have to deal with dangerous people and situations....legalizing these substances would require there to be some "control" over what goes into it and therefore make it safer....PLUS The Government could Tax the product, which would definitely help out in our current situation.
</P>


The Goverment can make billions on Marijuana alone. They can tax the hell out of it. It's the only drug proven to not be fatal. </P>


Can you imagine crack, meth, heroin, X, speed, etc all available to the public? </P>


If under age kids can find ways to purchase beer, what's to say they won't be able to purchase drugs? </P>

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 01:42 PM
how can u seperate from bush? He was republican...

I don't want to speak for Morehead, but I know I didn't particularly like Bush, I think you have me (and probably Morehead) confused, you see us as like hard line Republicans, I don't really consider myself a Republican....I'm Conservative there's a difference, now republicans at their core are SUPPOSED to follow many conservative beliefs....but they've been getting away from it more and more recently, Bush was not very conservative....just because he was a republican I'm not going to support him.

That said, as Morehead mentioned...

Bush's LARGEST deficit was 650 billion dollars, Obama's first two years were pushing 3 TRILLION

and yet BUSH is somehow blamed for it...consistently....it's bull****, bush's entire 8 years in office was a drop in the bucket of the deficit when compared to Obama over 2 years.

I didn't think Bush did a great job.....but you can almost make an argument that Obama is systematically TRYING to kill the economy in our country....he's on another level...it's insanity.
</p>


Well I'm a small government conservative. And that goes for both fiscal and social policy.</p>


I don't like most politicians, regardless of party. The GOP more closely reflects my fiscal policy so I tend to support republicans. </p>


The fiscal policies of the current Democratic party are so off the wall, so in conflict with what we've learned with 235 years of unmatched prosperity, it is impossible to explain. The policies of the Kennedy administration are very similar to the current Republican party. The Dems have gone off the reservation over the past 50 years. They use divisive tactics that try to drive a wedge between their view of the social classes. And listening to Matt, I can see that he has fallen for it hook, line and sinker.</p>


The GOP uses their own brand of divisiveness, but not to the scale of the Dems.</p>


What it comes down to is that Republicans believe in people, and Dems believe in government.</p>

What I don't understand is the lack of backbone in the republican party....we go out and come up with plans to fix the solution....and Obama get's up in front of the camera and scolds the republicans for their plans....how come we never ask them to come up with a plan....they never do anything....all they do is scold republicans demonize republicans and big business and the rich...but what about their duties...they were supposed to have already HAD a budget...but they ignored their responsibility because it came up at an inconvenient time, so they push it to us...and we do their job! and then they have the balls to criticize our plan...when they don't even have one themselves...so whats our response? we come up with more plans...we give in, why can't we say...NO...if you want us to compromise fine...but we need something to compromise with...come up with a plan...don't just rip at ours.

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 01:46 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot

<font color="#0000ff">I'm for legalizing ALL drugs</font>, this way they would be controlled, not cut with even more dangerous chemicals, you'd know what you were getting and therefore it would be safer, It would remove the "taboo" of many drugs, kids generally get into it BECAUSE it's illegal and it's dangerous...to be cool etc etc.....when you can just go to the corner store and pick it up it'd be less popular.

Most importantly, the Government could TAX the sale of these drugs, which would be a serious boon to revenue.
</p>


legalizing marijuana is one thing, but to legalize all drugs is insaine. </p>




For what reason? It's not like they don't exist here because they are Illegal....people still do them, the problem is they do ****, shady dealers add all types of chemicals to make higher profits, in order to find it you have to deal with dangerous people and situations....legalizing these substances would require there to be some "control" over what goes into it and therefore make it safer....PLUS The Government could Tax the product, which would definitely help out in our current situation.
</p>


The Goverment can make billions on Marijuana alone. They can tax the hell out of it. It's the only drug proven to not be fatal. </p>


Can you imagine crack, meth, heroin, X, speed, etc all available to the public? </p>


If under age kids can find ways to purchase beer, what's to say they won't be able to purchase drugs? </p>

Alcohol can be fatal, Cigarettes kill thousands upon thousands every year, they are legal, I can't follow the logic of your point, driving cars can easily be lethal...there are plenty of dangerous activities that are legal...why should recreational drug use be any different?

Yes the government can make billions off of Marijuana alone....Billions is literally nothing...we are TRILLIONS of dollars in debt...100-200billion dollars worth in taxes from Mary Jane....will barely even be noticeable, combine everything together...maybe 500 Million...no matter what it's not gonna "solve" the problem....but it's something, I can't follow the logic of allowing one drug and not another though...in my opinion it should be all or nothing.

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 01:47 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot

I'm for legalizing ALL drugs, this way they would be controlled, not cut with even more dangerous chemicals, you'd know what you were getting and therefore it would be safer, It would remove the "taboo" of many drugs, kids generally get into it BECAUSE it's illegal and it's dangerous...to be cool etc etc.....when you can just go to the corner store and pick it up it'd be less popular.

Most importantly, the Government could TAX the sale of these drugs, which would be a serious boon to revenue.
I've considered the purity issue before, but the tax benefit is huge--good points.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 01:49 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot

<font color="#0000ff">I'm for legalizing ALL drugs</font>, this way they would be controlled, not cut with even more dangerous chemicals, you'd know what you were getting and therefore it would be safer, It would remove the "taboo" of many drugs, kids generally get into it BECAUSE it's illegal and it's dangerous...to be cool etc etc.....when you can just go to the corner store and pick it up it'd be less popular.

Most importantly, the Government could TAX the sale of these drugs, which would be a serious boon to revenue.
</p>


legalizing marijuana is one thing, but to legalize all drugs is insaine. </p>




For what reason? It's not like they don't exist here because they are Illegal....people still do them, the problem is they do ****, shady dealers add all types of chemicals to make higher profits, in order to find it you have to deal with dangerous people and situations....legalizing these substances would require there to be some "control" over what goes into it and therefore make it safer....PLUS The Government could Tax the product, which would definitely help out in our current situation.
</p>


The Goverment can make billions on Marijuana alone. They can tax the hell out of it. It's the only drug proven to not be fatal. </p>


Can you imagine crack, meth, heroin, X, speed, etc all available to the public? </p>


If under age kids can find ways to purchase beer, what's to say they won't be able to purchase drugs? </p>

it was my experience that it was easier to get drugs in hs than liqour - just saying

not in love with legalizing all drugs, infact i think when people say that it hurts legalizing just pot.

one step at a time

and it does sound crazy, but I always hear people make good points baout doing it

ny06
07-22-2011, 01:53 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot

<FONT color=#0000ff>I'm for legalizing ALL drugs</FONT>, this way they would be controlled, not cut with even more dangerous chemicals, you'd know what you were getting and therefore it would be safer, It would remove the "taboo" of many drugs, kids generally get into it BECAUSE it's illegal and it's dangerous...to be cool etc etc.....when you can just go to the corner store and pick it up it'd be less popular.

Most importantly, the Government could TAX the sale of these drugs, which would be a serious boon to revenue.
</P>


legalizing marijuana is one thing, but to legalize all drugs is insaine. </P>




For what reason? It's not like they don't exist here because they are Illegal....people still do them, the problem is they do ****, shady dealers add all types of chemicals to make higher profits, in order to find it you have to deal with dangerous people and situations....legalizing these substances would require there to be some "control" over what goes into it and therefore make it safer....PLUS The Government could Tax the product, which would definitely help out in our current situation.
</P>


The Goverment can make billions on Marijuana alone. They can tax the hell out of it. It's the only drug proven to not be fatal. </P>


Can you imagine crack, meth, heroin, X, speed, etc all available to the public? </P>


If under age kids can find ways to purchase beer, what's to say they won't be able to purchase drugs? </P>




Alcohol can be fatal, Cigarettes kill thousands upon thousands every year, they are legal, I can't follow the logic of your point, driving cars can easily be lethal...there are plenty of dangerous activities that are legal...why should recreational drug use be any different?

Yes the government can make billions off of Marijuana alone....Billions is literally nothing...we are TRILLIONS of dollars in debt...100-200billion dollars worth in taxes from Mary Jane....will barely even be noticeable, combine everything together...maybe 500 Million...no matter what it's not gonna "solve" the problem....but it's something, I can't follow the logic of allowing one drug and not another though...in my opinion it should be all or nothing.
</P>


My point is the last thing we need is to have any sort of drug at our disposal. Yes this country is in major debt. But by legalizing <U>all </U>drugs would be more harm then good. </P>


</P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 01:56 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot

<font color="#0000ff">I'm for legalizing ALL drugs</font>, this way they would be controlled, not cut with even more dangerous chemicals, you'd know what you were getting and therefore it would be safer, It would remove the "taboo" of many drugs, kids generally get into it BECAUSE it's illegal and it's dangerous...to be cool etc etc.....when you can just go to the corner store and pick it up it'd be less popular.

Most importantly, the Government could TAX the sale of these drugs, which would be a serious boon to revenue.
</p>


legalizing marijuana is one thing, but to legalize all drugs is insaine. </p>




For what reason? It's not like they don't exist here because they are Illegal....people still do them, the problem is they do ****, shady dealers add all types of chemicals to make higher profits, in order to find it you have to deal with dangerous people and situations....legalizing these substances would require there to be some "control" over what goes into it and therefore make it safer....PLUS The Government could Tax the product, which would definitely help out in our current situation.
</p>


The Goverment can make billions on Marijuana alone. They can tax the hell out of it. It's the only drug proven to not be fatal. </p>


Can you imagine crack, meth, heroin, X, speed, etc all available to the public? </p>


If under age kids can find ways to purchase beer, what's to say they won't be able to purchase drugs? </p>




Alcohol can be fatal, Cigarettes kill thousands upon thousands every year, they are legal, I can't follow the logic of your point, driving cars can easily be lethal...there are plenty of dangerous activities that are legal...why should recreational drug use be any different?

Yes the government can make billions off of Marijuana alone....Billions is literally nothing...we are TRILLIONS of dollars in debt...100-200billion dollars worth in taxes from Mary Jane....will barely even be noticeable, combine everything together...maybe 500 Million...no matter what it's not gonna "solve" the problem....but it's something, I can't follow the logic of allowing one drug and not another though...in my opinion it should be all or nothing.
</p>


My point is the last thing we need is to have any sort of drug at our disposal. Yes this country is in major debt. But by legalizing <u>all </u>drugs will be more harm then good. </p>


</p>

its hard to really debate that as well

this is more of a debate to me than no braining the fact that pot should be legal

whether you agree wtih it or not, i just wish people would keep this arguments seperate. It helps keep pot down as a drug like crack and heroin oppose to where it should be grouped with : liqour and cigs

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 01:56 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot

<font color="#0000ff">I'm for legalizing ALL drugs</font>, this way they would be controlled, not cut with even more dangerous chemicals, you'd know what you were getting and therefore it would be safer, It would remove the "taboo" of many drugs, kids generally get into it BECAUSE it's illegal and it's dangerous...to be cool etc etc.....when you can just go to the corner store and pick it up it'd be less popular.

Most importantly, the Government could TAX the sale of these drugs, which would be a serious boon to revenue.
</p>


legalizing marijuana is one thing, but to legalize all drugs is insaine. </p>




For what reason? It's not like they don't exist here because they are Illegal....people still do them, the problem is they do ****, shady dealers add all types of chemicals to make higher profits, in order to find it you have to deal with dangerous people and situations....legalizing these substances would require there to be some "control" over what goes into it and therefore make it safer....PLUS The Government could Tax the product, which would definitely help out in our current situation.
</p>


The Goverment can make billions on Marijuana alone. They can tax the hell out of it. It's the only drug proven to not be fatal. </p>


Can you imagine crack, meth, heroin, X, speed, etc all available to the public? </p>


If under age kids can find ways to purchase beer, what's to say they won't be able to purchase drugs? </p>

it was my experience that it was easier to get drugs in hs than liqour - just saying

not in love with legalizing all drugs, infact i think when people say that it hurts legalizing just pot.

one step at a time

and it does sound crazy, but I always hear people make good points baout doing it


Yeah the most feasible way to do it is step by step starting with weed, to try to do them all in one fell swoop would never work...people couldn't stomach it, it would be too big a change very few would accept it...

I'm not pushing for it to be done that way, what I am saying if it could be done it would be beneficial all around in my opinion.

JPizzack
07-22-2011, 01:59 PM
you guys make me want to kill myself....no seriously, do you want that on your conscience? that you offed JPizzack with your banter? how terrible!

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 02:01 PM
and i have a very real topic that i am curious as to where you guys stand...

especially moorehead

it always gets overlooked: Whats your thoughts on the legalization of pot

<font color="#0000ff">I'm for legalizing ALL drugs</font>, this way they would be controlled, not cut with even more dangerous chemicals, you'd know what you were getting and therefore it would be safer, It would remove the "taboo" of many drugs, kids generally get into it BECAUSE it's illegal and it's dangerous...to be cool etc etc.....when you can just go to the corner store and pick it up it'd be less popular.

Most importantly, the Government could TAX the sale of these drugs, which would be a serious boon to revenue.
</p>


legalizing marijuana is one thing, but to legalize all drugs is insaine. </p>




For what reason? It's not like they don't exist here because they are Illegal....people still do them, the problem is they do ****, shady dealers add all types of chemicals to make higher profits, in order to find it you have to deal with dangerous people and situations....legalizing these substances would require there to be some "control" over what goes into it and therefore make it safer....PLUS The Government could Tax the product, which would definitely help out in our current situation.
</p>


The Goverment can make billions on Marijuana alone. They can tax the hell out of it. It's the only drug proven to not be fatal. </p>


Can you imagine crack, meth, heroin, X, speed, etc all available to the public? </p>


If under age kids can find ways to purchase beer, what's to say they won't be able to purchase drugs? </p>

it was my experience that it was easier to get drugs in hs than liqour - just saying

not in love with legalizing all drugs, infact i think when people say that it hurts legalizing just pot.

one step at a time

and it does sound crazy, but I always hear people make good points baout doing it


Yeah the most feasible way to do it is step by step starting with weed, to try to do them all in one fell swoop would never work...people couldn't stomach it, it would be too big a change very few would accept it...

I'm not pushing for it to be done that way, what I am saying if it could be done it would be beneficial all around in my opinion.


but as someone that has had their experience with coke and e... i mean when i wa sinto it big it was all the time. I know alot of people that i was doing it with that could never break that cycle

you would have to think we would obviously have alot more drug addicts by it... making it socially acceptable and younger generations would think its okay

it chills me to think that had this happened like some 13 year old says he can't wait to turn 21 so he can shoot up legally (like we did about drinking at that age)

you do make good points but as a human race im not sure its in our best interest

but i do agree the denial about the use in this country needs to end. We just aren't a realististic society. I think they should lessen possession charges and really stick it to the creaters and big dealers

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 02:02 PM
you guys make me want to kill myself....no seriously, do you want that on your conscience? that you offed JPizzack with your banter? how terrible!


we were kinda hoping for it...

we already got ur fantasy spot filled

lol j/p

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 02:02 PM
you guys make me want to kill myself....no seriously, do you want that on your conscience? that you offed JPizzack with your banter? how terrible!</P>


Right. HBO soap operas and back waxing is better conversation.</P>


And my conscience would bother me for a day or so, but I'd get past it.</P>

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 02:03 PM
you guys make me want to kill myself....no seriously, do you want that on your conscience? that you offed JPizzack with your banter? how terrible!


we were kinda hoping for it...

we already got ur fantasy spot filled

lol j/p
</P>


Pizz who?</P>

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 02:03 PM
My point is the last thing we need is to have any sort of drug at our disposal. Yes this country is in major debt. But by legalizing <u>all </u>drugs would be more harm then good.

I understand that's what you think, I just don't see the logic behind it.

People (including kids) already have ways of finding the same drugs you are against legalizing, but when they find it they are putting themselves in dangerous situations and getting drugs that are cut with all types of chemicals that have way worse symptoms and side effects then the drug itself.

Hypothetical question.

say you have a 16 year old son...now lets say he's gonna by some cocaine...

Assume that you have no way to stop him, he's going to do it and there is nothing you can do.

would you rather him buy it from a corner store, from the local pharmacist and be sure that what he's doing is actually Cocaine and isn't cut with levamisole (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-21/news/29707032_1_levamisole-skin-cocaine) which is a de-worming chemical used in cattle that occasionally causes a flesh eating disease in humans...

or would you rather him drive to the closes shady neighborhood, have him walk into a back alley and meet up with a dealer who has cut the cocaine with levamisole...or who knows what...and maybe get jumped and robbed or who knows what.

which would you rather....hypothetically...

remember you CAN NOT stop him from trying it...so the choice is get it from the local pharmacy or take his chances in the ghetto...which would you prefer.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 02:07 PM
My point is the last thing we need is to have any sort of drug at our disposal. Yes this country is in major debt. But by legalizing <u>all </u>drugs would be more harm then good.

I understand that's what you think, I just don't see the logic behind it.

People (including kids) already have ways of finding the same drugs you are against legalizing, but when they find it they are putting themselves in dangerous situations and getting drugs that are cut with all types of chemicals that have way worse symptoms and side effects then the drug itself.

Hypothetical question.

say you have a 16 year old son...now lets say he's gonna by some cocaine...

Assume that you have no way to stop him, he's going to do it and there is nothing you can do.

would you rather him buy it from a corner store, from the local pharmacist and be sure that what he's doing is actually Cocaine and isn't cut with levamisole (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-21/news/29707032_1_levamisole-skin-cocaine) which is a de-worming chemical used in cattle that occasionally causes a flesh eating disease in humans...

or would you rather him drive to the closes shady neighborhood, have him walk into a back alley and meet up with a dealer who has cut the cocaine with levamisole...or who knows what...and maybe get jumped and robbed or who knows what.

which would you rather....hypothetically...

remember you CAN NOT stop him from trying it...so the choice is get it from the local pharmacy or take his chances in the ghetto...which would you prefer.


yea but there is some logic to the fact those dangerous situations do prevent alot of people from doing that stuff.

actually when u bring up the hypothetical it makes me think of how dangerous it could actually be to legalize it. More people would try more drugs which would lead to more addiction...

its gives too many opportunities to be a waste. We are a gluttonous country.

Obviously anybody would want their kid to have the cleanest **** possible if there was no way u could stop it.....

but by having that store 4 other kids in his class that would of never tried coke because of the shadyness are now going into that pharmacy trying it and probably 2 or 3 are going to ge taddicted

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 02:07 PM
you guys make me want to kill myself....no seriously, do you want that on your conscience? that you offed JPizzack with your banter? how terrible!


we were kinda hoping for it...

we already got ur fantasy spot filled

lol j/p
bahahahahaaaaaa

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 02:08 PM
you guys make me want to kill myself....no seriously, do you want that on your conscience? that you offed JPizzack with your banter? how terrible!</p>


Right. HBO soap operas and back waxing is better conversation.</p>



</p>you know it.

JPizzack
07-22-2011, 02:10 PM
you guys make me want to kill myself....no seriously, do you want that on your conscience? that you offed JPizzack with your banter? how terrible!</P>


Right. HBO soap operas and back waxing is better conversation.</P>


And my conscience would bother me for a day or so, but I'd get past it.</P>


</P>


whatever, HBO only has 1 good show....and I'm a hairy mother****er, so i dont know what that second part is about.

When you guys get all political, this place ****ing empties.

P.S. - I'm middle class, and I'm recession-proof. Move along, nothing to see here.

edit- oh, and youre boring@!!!</P>

ny06
07-22-2011, 02:11 PM
My point is the last thing we need is to have any sort of drug at our disposal. Yes this country is in major debt. But by legalizing <U>all </U>drugs would be more harm then good.

I understand that's what you think, I just don't see the logic behind it.

People (including kids) already have ways of finding the same drugs you are against legalizing, but when they find it they are putting themselves in dangerous situations and getting drugs that are cut with all types of chemicals that have way worse symptoms and side effects then the drug itself.

Hypothetical question.

say you have a 16 year old son...now lets say he's gonna by some cocaine...

Assume that you have no way to stop him, he's going to do it and there is nothing you can do.

would you rather him buy it from a corner store, from the local pharmacist and be sure that what he's doing is actually Cocaine and isn't cut with levamisole (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-21/news/29707032_1_levamisole-skin-cocaine) which is a de-worming chemical used in cattle that occasionally causes a flesh eating disease in humans...

or would you rather him drive to the closes shady neighborhood, have him walk into a back alley and meet up with a dealer who has cut the cocaine with levamisole...or who knows what...and maybe get jumped and robbed or who knows what.

which would you rather....hypothetically...

remember you CAN NOT stop him from trying it...so the choice is get it from the local pharmacy or take his chances in the ghetto...which would you prefer.
</P>


I would counter that with if we legalize all drugs then our society would be full of addicts. Yes drugs are very easy to access nowadays. But by putting it in the stores would just be adding fuel to the fire. </P>


For example, look at what that guy did in Long Island. He killed 4 people in a pharmacy just for pain killers. Could you imagine if every pharmacy had any sort of drug at there disposal? Crime would sky rocket. </P>


So my question is, is legalizing all drugs really the answer to our financial debt? </P>

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 02:11 PM
but as someone that has had their experience with coke and e... i mean when i wa sinto it big it was all the time. I know alot of people that i was doing it with that could never break that cycle

you would have to think we would obviously have alot more drug addicts by it... making it socially acceptable and younger generations would think its okay

it chills me to think that had this happened like some 13 year old says he can't wait to turn 21 so he can shoot up legally (like we did about drinking at that age)

you do make good points but as a human race im not sure its in our best interest

but i do agree the denial about the use in this country needs to end. We just aren't a realististic society. I think they should lessen possession charges and really stick it to the creaters and big dealers


I've met plenty of potheads who can't get their life together because all they want to do is Smoke weed all day everyday, I've met plenty of Alcoholics who can't function....I don't separate based on the substance...is coke or heroin really that much more addictive then say cigarettes?

Yes some drugs are more addictive some drugs are more dangerous then others...but in the end people have to take personal responsibility....they guy who OD's on Herion is just as likely to have died of blood poisoning from alcohol if he couldn't find Herion ......it's a personality/attitude trait to go too far with "drugs" in general....the substance isn't the problem the person is...

that's my opinion, and on top of that....if these were controlled substances the substances themselves would not only be safer as I mentioned before....but could be rationed, for example you could put a limit on how many grams of a substance they could buy a week....lowering the chances of OD's anyhow....also the simply fact that it's legal I think will be a deterrent to doing it for the "rebellious" kids who are the ones who generally end up getting hurt cause they don't know what they are doing.

JPizzack
07-22-2011, 02:12 PM
we already got ur fantasy spot filled
</P>


ahh good....didn't want to hold anything up.</P>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 02:14 PM
you guys make me want to kill myself....no seriously, do you want that on your conscience? that you offed JPizzack with your banter? how terrible!Don't ask them that....They are like to people screaming "JUMP" to the dude on the ledge.

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 02:14 PM
you guys make me want to kill myself....no seriously, do you want that on your conscience? that you offed JPizzack with your banter? how terrible!</P>


Right. HBO soap operas and back waxing is better conversation.</P>


And my conscience would bother me for a day or so, but I'd get past it.</P>


</P>


whatever, HBO only has 1 good show....and I'm a hairy mother****er, so i dont know what that second part is about.

When you guys get all political, this place ****ing empties.

P.S. - I'm middle class, and I'm recession-proof. Move along, nothing to see here.

edit- oh, and youre boring@!!!</P>


</P>


Put away your rage.</P>


Turn that frown up-side down.</P>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 02:15 PM
you guys make me want to kill myself....no seriously, do you want that on your conscience? that you offed JPizzack with your banter? how terrible!</p>


Right. HBO soap operas and back waxing is better conversation.</p>



</p>you know it.
Here--Here to back shaving and Eyebrow waxing.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 02:15 PM
but as someone that has had their experience with coke and e... i mean when i wa sinto it big it was all the time. I know alot of people that i was doing it with that could never break that cycle

you would have to think we would obviously have alot more drug addicts by it... making it socially acceptable and younger generations would think its okay

it chills me to think that had this happened like some 13 year old says he can't wait to turn 21 so he can shoot up legally (like we did about drinking at that age)

you do make good points but as a human race im not sure its in our best interest

but i do agree the denial about the use in this country needs to end. We just aren't a realististic society. I think they should lessen possession charges and really stick it to the creaters and big dealers


I've met plenty of potheads who can't get their life together because all they want to do is Smoke weed all day everyday, I've met plenty of Alcoholics who can't function....I don't separate based on the substance...is coke or heroin really that much more addictive then say cigarettes?

Yes some drugs are more addictive some drugs are more dangerous then others...but in the end people have to take personal responsibility....they guy who OD's on Herion is just as likely to have died of blood poisoning from alcohol if he couldn't find Herion ......it's a personality/attitude trait to go too far with "drugs" in general....the substance isn't the problem the person is...

that's my opinion, and on top of that....if these were controlled substances the substances themselves would not only be safer as I mentioned before....but could be rationed, for example you could put a limit on how many grams of a substance they could buy a week....lowering the chances of OD's anyhow....also the simply fact that it's legal I think will be a deterrent to doing it for the "rebellious" kids who are the ones who generally end up getting hurt cause they don't know what they are doing.


absolutely. Are u kidding me? If i had a cig i wouldn't need another one... cmon man. How many times in ur drug days have u finished all ur **** and hit ur guy up at like 3am... scouring for some more

very much more addictive.


And I would say that a drug like coke is more of a gateway to harder drugs. because it is socially acceptable in way because so many people do i ton the DL but its still considered a hard drug.

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 02:16 PM
you guys make me want to kill myself....no seriously, do you want that on your conscience? that you offed JPizzack with your banter? how terrible!</p>


Right. HBO soap operas and back waxing is better conversation.</p>


And my conscience would bother me for a day or so, but I'd get past it.</p>


</p>


whatever, HBO only has 1 good show....and I'm a hairy mother****er, so i dont know what that second part is about.

When you guys get all political, this place ****ing empties.

P.S. - I'm middle class, and I'm recession-proof. Move along, nothing to see here.

edit- oh, and youre boring@!!!</p>


</p>


Put away your rage.</p>


<u>Turn that frown up-side down.</u></p>lol--can't remember where I heard that before?

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 02:16 PM
you guys make me want to kill myself....no seriously, do you want that on your conscience? that you offed JPizzack with your banter? how terrible!Don't ask them that....They are like to people screaming "JUMP" to the dude on the ledge.


lololol

all i got to say to that is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8MO7fkZc5o

lawl
07-22-2011, 02:18 PM
My point is the last thing we need is to have any sort of drug at our disposal. Yes this country is in major debt. But by legalizing <u>all </u>drugs would be more harm then good.

I understand that's what you think, I just don't see the logic behind it.

People (including kids) already have ways of finding the same drugs you are against legalizing, but when they find it they are putting themselves in dangerous situations and getting drugs that are cut with all types of chemicals that have way worse symptoms and side effects then the drug itself.

Hypothetical question.

say you have a 16 year old son...now lets say he's gonna by some cocaine...

Assume that you have no way to stop him, he's going to do it and there is nothing you can do.

would you rather him buy it from a corner store, from the local pharmacist and be sure that what he's doing is actually Cocaine and isn't cut with levamisole (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-21/news/29707032_1_levamisole-skin-cocaine) which is a de-worming chemical used in cattle that occasionally causes a flesh eating disease in humans...

or would you rather him drive to the closes shady neighborhood, have him walk into a back alley and meet up with a dealer who has cut the cocaine with levamisole...or who knows what...and maybe get jumped and robbed or who knows what.

which would you rather....hypothetically...

remember you CAN NOT stop him from trying it...so the choice is get it from the local pharmacy or take his chances in the ghetto...which would you prefer.


yea but there is some logic to the fact those dangerous situations do prevent alot of people from doing that stuff.

actually when u bring up the hypothetical it makes me think of how dangerous it could actually be to legalize it.* More people would try more drugs which would lead to more addiction...

its gives too many opportunities to be a waste.* We are a gluttonous country.

Obviously anybody would want their kid to have the cleanest **** possible if there was no way u could stop it.....

but by having that store 4 other kids in his class that would of never tried coke because of the shadyness are now going into that pharmacy trying it and probably 2 or 3 are going to ge taddicted


That's personal choice and responsibility.

If you're dumb enough to not be able to control yourself then why should there be prohibitions because of that on our country's ability to make money?

If a guy wants to shoot up whatever at a party or at home and isn't harming anyone else, then why should we care?

Now, if he hops in a car and kills someone then charge him for that.

This is coming from someone who has never done any drugs, to include mari

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 02:19 PM
you guys make me want to kill myself....no seriously, do you want that on your conscience? that you offed JPizzack with your banter? how terrible!</p>


Right. HBO soap operas and back waxing is better conversation.</p>


And my conscience would bother me for a day or so, but I'd get past it.</p>


</p>


whatever, HBO only has 1 good show....and I'm a hairy mother****er, so i dont know what that second part is about.

When you guys get all political, this place ****ing empties.

P.S. - I'm middle class, and I'm recession-proof. Move along, nothing to see here.

edit- oh, and youre boring@!!!</p>


</p>


Put away your rage.</p>


Turn that frown up-side down.</p>pshhhh. pump that rage up syyyyn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjJxDzisFwI&amp;feature=related

rage against the machine-revolver for all the losers without youtube.

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 02:22 PM
I would counter that with if we legalize all drugs then our society would be full of addicts.

I don't buy that though, Addicts are Addicts...they are that way because of their own personality traits, maybe their upbringing as well....I don't think the legalization of ALL drugs would "create" addicts...



Yes drugs are very easy to access nowadays. But by putting it in the stores would just be adding fuel to the fire

This is a point that I fundamentally disagree with, I don't believe Drugs make Addicts...I think Addicts find drugs...whether they are legal or not the addict will find the drug.




For example, look at what that guy did in Long Island. He killed 4 people in a pharmacy just for pain killers. Could you imagine if every pharmacy had any sort of drug at there disposal? Crime would sky rocket. </p>

I disagree.....just because there is a person who is crazy enough to kill people over pain killers doesn't make if H was legal there will be more people killing people in pharmacy's....the only difference in my opinion is the guy who killed people for pain killers would have been killing them for H or whatever other drug he decided he liked....the fundamental difference here is you think DRUGS are the root of the problem...I disagree...I think ADDICTION is the root of the problem I think people who become addicted to Herion or Coke or whatever would have eventually become addicted to pain killers or something else if they couldn't find those drugs...in the end I don't believe there would be a substantial increase in crime....in fact I believe there would be LESS crime if anything due to the fact that normal people...would not have to put themselves into compromising situations in order to obtain what they desire.
</p>



So my question is, is legalizing all drugs really the answer to our financial debt?</p>

No, it would help, but even that would not "solve" the problem, it would be part of the solution, the problem here is you believe Legalizing drugs would be a "bad" thing (outside of the economy) for the country....I disagree...I think the legalization of drugs would, outside of helping the deficit, also make for a safer environment, I believe there would be LESS crime and LESS OD's more control overall.
</p>


</p>

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 02:24 PM
My point is the last thing we need is to have any sort of drug at our disposal. Yes this country is in major debt. But by legalizing <U>all </U>drugs would be more harm then good.

I understand that's what you think, I just don't see the logic behind it.

People (including kids) already have ways of finding the same drugs you are against legalizing, but when they find it they are putting themselves in dangerous situations and getting drugs that are cut with all types of chemicals that have way worse symptoms and side effects then the drug itself.

Hypothetical question.

say you have a 16 year old son...now lets say he's gonna by some cocaine...

Assume that you have no way to stop him, he's going to do it and there is nothing you can do.

would you rather him buy it from a corner store, from the local pharmacist and be sure that what he's doing is actually Cocaine and isn't cut with levamisole (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-21/news/29707032_1_levamisole-skin-cocaine) which is a de-worming chemical used in cattle that occasionally causes a flesh eating disease in humans...

or would you rather him drive to the closes shady neighborhood, have him walk into a back alley and meet up with a dealer who has cut the cocaine with levamisole...or who knows what...and maybe get jumped and robbed or who knows what.

which would you rather....hypothetically...

remember you CAN NOT stop him from trying it...so the choice is get it from the local pharmacy or take his chances in the ghetto...which would you prefer.


yea but there is some logic to the fact those dangerous situations do prevent alot of people from doing that stuff.

actually when u bring up the hypothetical it makes me think of how dangerous it could actually be to legalize it. More people would try more drugs which would lead to more addiction...

its gives too many opportunities to be a waste. We are a gluttonous country.

Obviously anybody would want their kid to have the cleanest **** possible if there was no way u could stop it.....

but by having that store 4 other kids in his class that would of never tried coke because of the shadyness are now going into that pharmacy trying it and probably 2 or 3 are going to ge taddicted
That's personal choice and responsibility. If you're dumb enough to not be able to control yourself then why should there be prohibitions because of that on our country's ability to make money? If a guy wants to shoot up whatever at a party or at home and isn't harming anyone else, then why should we care? Now, if he hops in a car and kills someone then charge him for that. This is coming from someone who has never done any drugs, to include mari</P>


I d<FONT size=6>O</FONT>n't know. There'<FONT size=6>S</FONT> many d<FONT size=6>I</FONT>fferent way<FONT size=6>S</FONT> Yo<FONT size=6>U</FONT> <FONT size=6>C</FONT>an loo<FONT size=6>K</FONT> atit. <FONT size=6>S</FONT>o lets just wait and see.</P>

JPizzack
07-22-2011, 02:25 PM
you guys make me want to kill myself....no seriously, do you want that on your conscience? that you offed JPizzack with your banter? how terrible!</P>


Right. HBO soap operas and back waxing is better conversation.</P>


And my conscience would bother me for a day or so, but I'd get past it.</P>


</P>


whatever, HBO only has 1 good show....and I'm a hairy mother****er, so i dont know what that second part is about.

When you guys get all political, this place ****ing empties.

P.S. - I'm middle class, and I'm recession-proof. Move along, nothing to see here.

edit- oh, and youre boring@!!!</P>


</P>


Put away your rage.</P>


Turn that frown up-side down.</P>


</P>


I love Rage....so does Matt actually...</P>


Wait....what are we talking about??</P>

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 02:25 PM
but as someone that has had their experience with coke and e... i mean when i wa sinto it big it was all the time. I know alot of people that i was doing it with that could never break that cycle

you would have to think we would obviously have alot more drug addicts by it... making it socially acceptable and younger generations would think its okay

it chills me to think that had this happened like some 13 year old says he can't wait to turn 21 so he can shoot up legally (like we did about drinking at that age)

you do make good points but as a human race im not sure its in our best interest

but i do agree the denial about the use in this country needs to end. We just aren't a realististic society. I think they should lessen possession charges and really stick it to the creaters and big dealers


I've met plenty of potheads who can't get their life together because all they want to do is Smoke weed all day everyday, I've met plenty of Alcoholics who can't function....I don't separate based on the substance...is coke or heroin really that much more addictive then say cigarettes?

Yes some drugs are more addictive some drugs are more dangerous then others...but in the end people have to take personal responsibility....they guy who OD's on Herion is just as likely to have died of blood poisoning from alcohol if he couldn't find Herion ......it's a personality/attitude trait to go too far with "drugs" in general....the substance isn't the problem the person is...

that's my opinion, and on top of that....if these were controlled substances the substances themselves would not only be safer as I mentioned before....but could be rationed, for example you could put a limit on how many grams of a substance they could buy a week....lowering the chances of OD's anyhow....also the simply fact that it's legal I think will be a deterrent to doing it for the "rebellious" kids who are the ones who generally end up getting hurt cause they don't know what they are doing.


absolutely. Are u kidding me? If i had a cig i wouldn't need another one... cmon man. How many times in ur drug days have u finished all ur **** and hit ur guy up at like 3am... scouring for some more

very much more addictive.


And I would say that a drug like coke is more of a gateway to harder drugs. because it is socially acceptable in way because so many people do i ton the DL but its still considered a hard drug.




I've never had a drug that was more addictive then Cigarets to me...and I've dabbled with some stuff, Cigarets are on a whole different level to me.

ny06
07-22-2011, 02:28 PM
I would counter that with if we legalize all drugs then our society would be full of addicts.

I don't buy that though, Addicts are Addicts...they are that way because of their own personality traits, maybe their upbringing as well....I don't think the legalization of ALL drugs would "create" addicts...



Yes drugs are very easy to access nowadays. But by putting it in the stores would just be adding fuel to the fire

This is a point that I fundamentally disagree with, I don't believe Drugs make Addicts...I think Addicts find drugs...whether they are legal or not the addict will find the drug.




For example, look at what that guy did in Long Island. He killed 4 people in a pharmacy just for pain killers. Could you imagine if every pharmacy had any sort of drug at there disposal? Crime would sky rocket. </P>


I disagree.....just because there is a person who is crazy enough to kill people over pain killers doesn't make if H was legal there will be more people killing people in pharmacy's....the only difference in my opinion is the guy who killed people for pain killers would have been killing them for H or whatever other drug he decided he liked....the fundamental difference here is you think DRUGS are the root of the problem...I disagree...I think ADDICTION is the root of the problem I think people who become addicted to Herion or Coke or whatever would have eventually become addicted to pain killers or something else if they couldn't find those drugs...in the end I don't believe there would be a substantial increase in crime....in fact I believe there would be LESS crime if anything due to the fact that normal people...would not have to put themselves into compromising situations in order to obtain what they desire.
</P>



So my question is, is legalizing all drugs really the answer to our financial debt?</P>


No, it would help, but even that would not "solve" the problem, it would be part of the solution, the problem here is you believe Legalizing drugs would be a "bad" thing (outside of the economy) for the country....I disagree...I think the legalization of drugs would, outside of helping the deficit, also make for a safer environment, I believe there would be LESS crime and LESS OD's more control overall.
</P>



</P>


</P>


Being an addict is a decease. </P>


I have lost plenty of friends to drugs. Were they addicts before they got introduced to drugs? No. Many people turn to drugs for numerous reasons. Experimenting, peer pressure, depression. It's like give a suicidal person a loaded handgun. Your just asking for trouble. </P>


Your point to legalizing drugs is to help out our economy correct? But by doing that we just created epidemic of drug use. You solved one issue but created another. </P>

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 02:36 PM
Being an addict is a decease.


I have lost plenty of friends to drugs. Were they addicts before they got introduced to drugs? No.</p>

I don't think you can say that with any sort of reliability, before he was into drugs was he addicted to video games? or the gym? or coffee?</p>

Addiction is a personality trait, one that some people have an easier time fighting then others, people who end up giving into their addiction simply were not strong enough to fight it the substance they give into is of little concern...the fact that they gave in is the "REAL" problem....I Lost a close personal friend in high school because of a mixture of Herion and his GF breaking up with him, he ended up shooting himself, was he an addict before herion...meh it's hard to tell, I'd say he had an addictive personality...that was something he had to deal with...and he didn't deal with it well enough.</p>

Everyone has their own challenges in life...we have to learn to take personal responsibility and not blame it on others ...or on drugs or gambling or whatever...the drugs...the gambling....those aren't the problems...the PERSON is the problem.
</p>


</p>


</p>


Many people turn to drugs for numerous reasons. Experimenting, peer pressure, depression. It's like give a suicidal person a loaded handgun. Your just asking for trouble. </p>

But is the hand gun the problem? or is it the suicidal person, you don't need to give him the handgun it was likely he was going to jump off a bridge anyhow.
</p>


</p>



Your point to legalizing drugs is to help out our economy correct? But by doing that we just created epidemic of drug use. You solved one issue but created another.</p>

No, the fact that legalizing drugs helps the economy is a nice side effect, my point is I think the legalization of drugs would actually reduce crime/deaths related with drug use actually.
</p>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 02:42 PM
you guys make me want to kill myself....no seriously, do you want that on your conscience? that you offed JPizzack with your banter? how terrible!Don't ask them that....They are like to people screaming "JUMP" to the dude on the ledge.


lololol

all i got to say to that is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8MO7fkZc5o


Metallica Rocks!!! I'll never get tired of their music.

ny06
07-22-2011, 02:42 PM
Being an addict is a decease.


I have lost plenty of friends to drugs. Were they addicts before they got introduced to drugs? No.</P>


I don't think you can say that with any sort of reliability, before he was into drugs was he addicted to video games? or the gym? or coffee?</P>


Addiction is a personality trait, one that some people have an easier time fighting then others, people who end up giving into their addiction simply were not strong enough to fight it the substance they give into is of little concern...the fact that they gave in is the "REAL" problem....I Lost a close personal friend in high school because of a mixture of Herion and his GF breaking up with him, he ended up shooting himself, was he an addict before herion...meh it's hard to tell, I'd say he had an addictive personality...that was something he had to deal with...and he didn't deal with it well enough.</P>


Everyone has their own challenges in life...we have to learn to take personal responsibility and not blame it on others ...or on drugs or gambling or whatever...the drugs...the gambling....those aren't the problems...the PERSON is the problem.
</P>



</P>



</P>



Many people turn to drugs for numerous reasons. Experimenting, peer pressure, depression. It's like give a suicidal person a loaded handgun. Your just asking for trouble. </P>


But is the hand gun the problem? or is it the suicidal person, you don't need to give him the handgun it was likely he was going to jump off a bridge anyhow.
</P>



</P>



Your point to legalizing drugs is to help out our economy correct? But by doing that we just created epidemic of drug use. You solved one issue but created another.</P>


<FONT color=#0000ff>No, the fact that legalizing drugs helps the economy is a nice side effect, my point is I think the legalization of drugs would actually reduce crime/deaths related with drug use actually.
</FONT></P>


</P>


I disagree with that. Crime would go up, everyone would be high and will not be thinking with a clear head. You look at crime, majority of the perps are high on some sort of drug.</P>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 02:43 PM
Being an addict is a decease.


I have lost plenty of friends to drugs. Were they addicts before they got introduced to drugs? No.</p>

I don't think you can say that with any sort of reliability, before he was into drugs was he addicted to video games? or the gym? or coffee?</p>

<font size="4">Addiction is a personality trait,</font> one that some people have an easier time fighting then others, people who end up giving into their addiction simply were not strong enough to fight it the substance they give into is of little concern...the fact that they gave in is the "REAL" problem....I Lost a close personal friend in high school because of a mixture of Herion and his GF breaking up with him, he ended up shooting himself, was he an addict before herion...meh it's hard to tell, I'd say he had an addictive personality...that was something he had to deal with...and he didn't deal with it well enough.</p>

Everyone has their own challenges in life...we have to learn to take personal responsibility and not blame it on others ...or on drugs or gambling or whatever...the drugs...the gambling....those aren't the problems...the PERSON is the problem.
</p>


</p>


</p>


Many people turn to drugs for numerous reasons. Experimenting, peer pressure, depression. It's like give a suicidal person a loaded handgun. Your just asking for trouble. </p>

But is the hand gun the problem? or is it the suicidal person, you don't need to give him the handgun it was likely he was going to jump off a bridge anyhow.
</p>


</p>



Your point to legalizing drugs is to help out our economy correct? But by doing that we just created epidemic of drug use. You solved one issue but created another.</p>

No, the fact that legalizing drugs helps the economy is a nice side effect, my point is I think the legalization of drugs would actually reduce crime/deaths related with drug use actually.
</p><font size="4">Addiction is a personality trait--This I agree with. Medically it is commonly referred to as a disease, I disagree.</font>

ny06
07-22-2011, 02:45 PM
Being an addict is a decease.


I have lost plenty of friends to drugs. Were they addicts before they got introduced to drugs? No.</P>


I don't think you can say that with any sort of reliability, before he was into drugs was he addicted to video games? or the gym? or coffee?</P>


<FONT size=4>Addiction is a personality trait,</FONT> one that some people have an easier time fighting then others, people who end up giving into their addiction simply were not strong enough to fight it the substance they give into is of little concern...the fact that they gave in is the "REAL" problem....I Lost a close personal friend in high school because of a mixture of Herion and his GF breaking up with him, he ended up shooting himself, was he an addict before herion...meh it's hard to tell, I'd say he had an addictive personality...that was something he had to deal with...and he didn't deal with it well enough.</P>


Everyone has their own challenges in life...we have to learn to take personal responsibility and not blame it on others ...or on drugs or gambling or whatever...the drugs...the gambling....those aren't the problems...the PERSON is the problem.
</P>



</P>



</P>



Many people turn to drugs for numerous reasons. Experimenting, peer pressure, depression. It's like give a suicidal person a loaded handgun. Your just asking for trouble. </P>


But is the hand gun the problem? or is it the suicidal person, you don't need to give him the handgun it was likely he was going to jump off a bridge anyhow.
</P>



</P>



Your point to legalizing drugs is to help out our economy correct? But by doing that we just created epidemic of drug use. You solved one issue but created another.</P>


No, the fact that legalizing drugs helps the economy is a nice side effect, my point is I think the legalization of drugs would actually reduce crime/deaths related with drug use actually.
</P>


<FONT size=4>Addiction is a personality trait--This I agree with. Medically it is commonly referred to as a disease, I disagree.</FONT></P>


Tell that to the kids who are born addicted to drugs, because there mothers were using during pregnancy</P>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 02:47 PM
My point is the last thing we need is to have any sort of drug at our disposal. Yes this country is in major debt. But by legalizing <u>all </u>drugs would be more harm then good.

I understand that's what you think, I just don't see the logic behind it.

People (including kids) already have ways of finding the same drugs you are against legalizing, but when they find it they are putting themselves in dangerous situations and getting drugs that are cut with all types of chemicals that have way worse symptoms and side effects then the drug itself.

Hypothetical question.

say you have a 16 year old son...now lets say he's gonna by some cocaine...

Assume that you have no way to stop him, he's going to do it and there is nothing you can do.

would you rather him buy it from a corner store, from the local pharmacist and be sure that what he's doing is actually Cocaine and isn't cut with levamisole (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-21/news/29707032_1_levamisole-skin-cocaine) which is a de-worming chemical used in cattle that occasionally causes a flesh eating disease in humans...

or would you rather him drive to the closes shady neighborhood, have him walk into a back alley and meet up with a dealer who has cut the cocaine with levamisole...or who knows what...and maybe get jumped and robbed or who knows what.

which would you rather....hypothetically...

remember you CAN NOT stop him from trying it...so the choice is get it from the local pharmacy or take his chances in the ghetto...which would you prefer.


yea but there is some logic to the fact those dangerous situations do prevent alot of people from doing that stuff.

actually when u bring up the hypothetical it makes me think of how dangerous it could actually be to legalize it. More people would try more drugs which would lead to more addiction...

its gives too many opportunities to be a waste. We are a gluttonous country.

Obviously anybody would want their kid to have the cleanest **** possible if there was no way u could stop it.....

but by having that store 4 other kids in his class that would of never tried coke because of the shadyness are now going into that pharmacy trying it and probably 2 or 3 are going to ge taddicted
That's personal choice and responsibility. If you're dumb enough to not be able to control yourself then why should there be prohibitions because of that on our country's ability to make money? If a guy wants to shoot up whatever at a party or at home and isn't harming anyone else, then why should we care? Now, if he hops in a car and kills someone then charge him for that. This is coming from someone who has never done any drugs, to include mari</p>


I d<font size="6">O</font>n't know. There'<font size="6">S</font> many d<font size="6">I</font>fferent way<font size="6">S</font> Yo<font size="6">U</font> <font size="6">C</font>an loo<font size="6">K</font> atit. <font size="6">S</font>o lets just wait and see.</p>I was going from the bottom up and saw this---knew it had to be MH...and it was .

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 02:49 PM
Being an addict is a decease.


I have lost plenty of friends to drugs. Were they addicts before they got introduced to drugs? No.</p>


I don't think you can say that with any sort of reliability, before he was into drugs was he addicted to video games? or the gym? or coffee?</p>


<font size="4">Addiction is a personality trait,</font> one that some people have an easier time fighting then others, people who end up giving into their addiction simply were not strong enough to fight it the substance they give into is of little concern...the fact that they gave in is the "REAL" problem....I Lost a close personal friend in high school because of a mixture of Herion and his GF breaking up with him, he ended up shooting himself, was he an addict before herion...meh it's hard to tell, I'd say he had an addictive personality...that was something he had to deal with...and he didn't deal with it well enough.</p>


Everyone has their own challenges in life...we have to learn to take personal responsibility and not blame it on others ...or on drugs or gambling or whatever...the drugs...the gambling....those aren't the problems...the PERSON is the problem.
</p>



</p>



</p>



Many people turn to drugs for numerous reasons. Experimenting, peer pressure, depression. It's like give a suicidal person a loaded handgun. Your just asking for trouble. </p>


But is the hand gun the problem? or is it the suicidal person, you don't need to give him the handgun it was likely he was going to jump off a bridge anyhow.
</p>



</p>



Your point to legalizing drugs is to help out our economy correct? But by doing that we just created epidemic of drug use. You solved one issue but created another.</p>


No, the fact that legalizing drugs helps the economy is a nice side effect, my point is I think the legalization of drugs would actually reduce crime/deaths related with drug use actually.
</p>


<font size="4">Addiction is a personality trait--This I agree with. Medically it is commonly referred to as a disease, I disagree.</font></p>


Tell that to the kids who are born addicted to drugs, because there mothers were using during pregnancy</p>That would be a genetic addiction....you are somewhat correct in that scenario. A child inherited their parents chemical dependence due to their personality trait of addiction.

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 02:50 PM
I disagree with that. Crime would go up,<font color="#0000FF"> everyone would be high</font> and will not be thinking with a clear head. You look at crime, majority of the perps are high on some sort of drug.

I disagree with that, I don't think there would be a substantial increase in drug use even if everything were made legal, you would gain some because of the ease, you would lose some because doing said drugs would no longer be "taboo"

look at prohibition for alcohol, there was MORE crime when Alcohol was made illegal due to the mob running illegal/underground speakeasy's then there was before and after when Alcohol was legalize....

whose to say the same wouldn't be true with Coke or Herion or Ecstasy....?

you take it as a "FACT" that legalizing drugs will cause more use or more crime etc etc...

I do recognize that that is a "possible" outcome, but I believe (much like prohibition) the opposite outcome would actually happen...just based on prior examples throughout history.

what is your reasoning or basis for believing that legalizing drugs would cause these problems that you say it would?

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 02:52 PM
Being an addict is a decease.


I have lost plenty of friends to drugs. Were they addicts before they got introduced to drugs? No.</p>


I don't think you can say that with any sort of reliability, before he was into drugs was he addicted to video games? or the gym? or coffee?</p>


<font size="4">Addiction is a personality trait,</font> one that some people have an easier time fighting then others, people who end up giving into their addiction simply were not strong enough to fight it the substance they give into is of little concern...the fact that they gave in is the "REAL" problem....I Lost a close personal friend in high school because of a mixture of Herion and his GF breaking up with him, he ended up shooting himself, was he an addict before herion...meh it's hard to tell, I'd say he had an addictive personality...that was something he had to deal with...and he didn't deal with it well enough.</p>


Everyone has their own challenges in life...we have to learn to take personal responsibility and not blame it on others ...or on drugs or gambling or whatever...the drugs...the gambling....those aren't the problems...the PERSON is the problem.
</p>



</p>



</p>



Many people turn to drugs for numerous reasons. Experimenting, peer pressure, depression. It's like give a suicidal person a loaded handgun. Your just asking for trouble. </p>


But is the hand gun the problem? or is it the suicidal person, you don't need to give him the handgun it was likely he was going to jump off a bridge anyhow.
</p>



</p>



Your point to legalizing drugs is to help out our economy correct? But by doing that we just created epidemic of drug use. You solved one issue but created another.</p>


No, the fact that legalizing drugs helps the economy is a nice side effect, my point is I think the legalization of drugs would actually reduce crime/deaths related with drug use actually.
</p>


<font size="4">Addiction is a personality trait--This I agree with. Medically it is commonly referred to as a disease, I disagree.</font></p>


Tell that to the kids who are born addicted to drugs, because there mothers were using during pregnancy</p>That would be a genetic addiction....you are somewhat correct in that scenario. A child inherited their parents chemical dependence due to their personality trait of addiction.
It's very sad when pure, innocent childeren are birthed to by alcoholic or drug addict parents. The thirst for drugs is so great that the parents cannot stop using during pregnancy. It effects the kids with the addiction in addition to other psychological issues.

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 02:52 PM
101 here.

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 02:55 PM
I disagree with that. Crime would go up,<font color="#0000FF"> everyone would be high</font> and will not be thinking with a clear head. You look at crime, majority of the perps are high on some sort of drug.

I disagree with that, I don't think there would be a substantial increase in drug use even if everything were made legal, you would gain some because of the ease, you would lose some because doing said drugs would no longer be "taboo"

look at prohibition for alcohol, there was MORE crime when Alcohol was made illegal due to the mob running illegal/underground speakeasy's then there was before and after when Alcohol was legalize....

whose to say the same wouldn't be true with Coke or Herion or Ecstasy....?

you take it as a "FACT" that legalizing drugs will cause more use or more crime etc etc...

I do recognize that that is a "possible" outcome, but I believe (much like prohibition) the opposite outcome would actually happen...just based on prior examples throughout history.

what is your reasoning or basis for believing that legalizing drugs would cause these problems that you say it would?
I don't know if crime would necessarily increase with legalization, but NY06 has a point that the majority of crimes are done by people under the influence of some drug. The prohibition example and effect of previous history is also worth considering. Personally-I think marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol to SOME people.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 02:57 PM
you guys make me want to kill myself....no seriously, do you want that on your conscience? that you offed JPizzack with your banter? how terrible!</p>


Right. HBO soap operas and back waxing is better conversation.</p>


And my conscience would bother me for a day or so, but I'd get past it.</p>


</p>


whatever, HBO only has 1 good show....and I'm a hairy mother****er, so i dont know what that second part is about.

When you guys get all political, this place ****ing empties.

P.S. - I'm middle class, and I'm recession-proof. Move along, nothing to see here.

edit- oh, and youre boring@!!!</p>


</p>


Put away your rage.</p>


Turn that frown up-side down.</p>pshhhh. pump that rage up syyyyn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjJxDzisFwI&amp;feature=related

rage against the machine-revolver for all the losers without youtube.


:) for rage

:( cuz im that loser

Morehead State
07-22-2011, 02:58 PM
My point is the last thing we need is to have any sort of drug at our disposal. Yes this country is in major debt. But by legalizing <U>all </U>drugs would be more harm then good.

I understand that's what you think, I just don't see the logic behind it.

People (including kids) already have ways of finding the same drugs you are against legalizing, but when they find it they are putting themselves in dangerous situations and getting drugs that are cut with all types of chemicals that have way worse symptoms and side effects then the drug itself.

Hypothetical question.

say you have a 16 year old son...now lets say he's gonna by some cocaine...

Assume that you have no way to stop him, he's going to do it and there is nothing you can do.

would you rather him buy it from a corner store, from the local pharmacist and be sure that what he's doing is actually Cocaine and isn't cut with levamisole (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-21/news/29707032_1_levamisole-skin-cocaine) which is a de-worming chemical used in cattle that occasionally causes a flesh eating disease in humans...

or would you rather him drive to the closes shady neighborhood, have him walk into a back alley and meet up with a dealer who has cut the cocaine with levamisole...or who knows what...and maybe get jumped and robbed or who knows what.

which would you rather....hypothetically...

remember you CAN NOT stop him from trying it...so the choice is get it from the local pharmacy or take his chances in the ghetto...which would you prefer.


yea but there is some logic to the fact those dangerous situations do prevent alot of people from doing that stuff.

actually when u bring up the hypothetical it makes me think of how dangerous it could actually be to legalize it. More people would try more drugs which would lead to more addiction...

its gives too many opportunities to be a waste. We are a gluttonous country.

Obviously anybody would want their kid to have the cleanest **** possible if there was no way u could stop it.....

but by having that store 4 other kids in his class that would of never tried coke because of the shadyness are now going into that pharmacy trying it and probably 2 or 3 are going to ge taddicted
That's personal choice and responsibility. If you're dumb enough to not be able to control yourself then why should there be prohibitions because of that on our country's ability to make money? If a guy wants to shoot up whatever at a party or at home and isn't harming anyone else, then why should we care? Now, if he hops in a car and kills someone then charge him for that. This is coming from someone who has never done any drugs, to include mari</P>


I d<FONT size=6>O</FONT>n't know. There'<FONT size=6>S</FONT> many d<FONT size=6>I</FONT>fferent way<FONT size=6>S</FONT> Yo<FONT size=6>U</FONT> <FONT size=6>C</FONT>an loo<FONT size=6>K</FONT> atit. <FONT size=6>S</FONT>o lets just wait and see.</P>


I was going from the bottom up and saw this---knew it had to be MH...and it was .
</P>


Aimed at Lawl.</P>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 03:00 PM
My point is the last thing we need is to have any sort of drug at our disposal. Yes this country is in major debt. But by legalizing <u>all </u>drugs would be more harm then good.

I understand that's what you think, I just don't see the logic behind it.

People (including kids) already have ways of finding the same drugs you are against legalizing, but when they find it they are putting themselves in dangerous situations and getting drugs that are cut with all types of chemicals that have way worse symptoms and side effects then the drug itself.

Hypothetical question.

say you have a 16 year old son...now lets say he's gonna by some cocaine...

Assume that you have no way to stop him, he's going to do it and there is nothing you can do.

would you rather him buy it from a corner store, from the local pharmacist and be sure that what he's doing is actually Cocaine and isn't cut with levamisole (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-21/news/29707032_1_levamisole-skin-cocaine) which is a de-worming chemical used in cattle that occasionally causes a flesh eating disease in humans...

or would you rather him drive to the closes shady neighborhood, have him walk into a back alley and meet up with a dealer who has cut the cocaine with levamisole...or who knows what...and maybe get jumped and robbed or who knows what.

which would you rather....hypothetically...

remember you CAN NOT stop him from trying it...so the choice is get it from the local pharmacy or take his chances in the ghetto...which would you prefer.


yea but there is some logic to the fact those dangerous situations do prevent alot of people from doing that stuff.

actually when u bring up the hypothetical it makes me think of how dangerous it could actually be to legalize it. More people would try more drugs which would lead to more addiction...

its gives too many opportunities to be a waste. We are a gluttonous country.

Obviously anybody would want their kid to have the cleanest **** possible if there was no way u could stop it.....

but by having that store 4 other kids in his class that would of never tried coke because of the shadyness are now going into that pharmacy trying it and probably 2 or 3 are going to ge taddicted
That's personal choice and responsibility. If you're dumb enough to not be able to control yourself then why should there be prohibitions because of that on our country's ability to make money? If a guy wants to shoot up whatever at a party or at home and isn't harming anyone else, then why should we care? Now, if he hops in a car and kills someone then charge him for that. This is coming from someone who has never done any drugs, to include mari</p>


I d<font size="6">O</font>n't know. There'<font size="6">S</font> many d<font size="6">I</font>fferent way<font size="6">S</font> Yo<font size="6">U</font> <font size="6">C</font>an loo<font size="6">K</font> atit. <font size="6">S</font>o lets just wait and see.</p>


I was going from the bottom up and saw this---knew it had to be MH...and it was .
</p>


Aimed at Lawl.</p>I was serious about the old guns t-shirt. I will need xxl for the big guns.

ny06
07-22-2011, 03:00 PM
I disagree with that. Crime would go up,<FONT color=#0000ff> everyone would be high</FONT> and will not be thinking with a clear head. You look at crime, majority of the perps are high on some sort of drug.

I disagree with that, I don't think there would be a substantial increase in drug use even if everything were made legal, you would gain some because of the ease, you would lose some because doing said drugs would no longer be "taboo"

look at prohibition for alcohol, there was MORE crime when Alcohol was made illegal due to the mob running illegal/underground speakeasy's then there was before and after when Alcohol was legalize....

whose to say the same wouldn't be true with Coke or Herion or Ecstasy....?

you take it as a "FACT" that legalizing drugs will cause more use or more crime etc etc...

I do recognize that that is a "possible" outcome, but I believe (much like prohibition) the opposite outcome would actually happen...just based on prior examples throughout history.

what is your reasoning or basis for believing that legalizing drugs would cause these problems that you say it would?
</P>


I have seen it. I moved out of NY for too many people I was involved with were using. And it's ten times worse down here in Florida.With this country in an economic mess people are losing there jobs left and right. And many are turning to drugs. </P>


The numbers of drug users in America are stagering. If we legalize all drugs it will multiply. </P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 03:00 PM
I disagree with that. Crime would go up,<font color="#0000ff"> everyone would be high</font> and will not be thinking with a clear head. You look at crime, majority of the perps are high on some sort of drug.

I disagree with that, I don't think there would be a substantial increase in drug use even if everything were made legal, you would gain some because of the ease, you would lose some because doing said drugs would no longer be "taboo"

look at prohibition for alcohol, there was MORE crime when Alcohol was made illegal due to the mob running illegal/underground speakeasy's then there was before and after when Alcohol was legalize....

whose to say the same wouldn't be true with Coke or Herion or Ecstasy....?

you take it as a "FACT" that legalizing drugs will cause more use or more crime etc etc...

I do recognize that that is a "possible" outcome, but I believe (much like prohibition) the opposite outcome would actually happen...just based on prior examples throughout history.

what is your reasoning or basis for believing that legalizing drugs would cause these problems that you say it would?


i think your short sighted on that

you have to think of the next generations, for them if its legal their whole lives it would be socially accepted. Popular opinion unfortunately effects alot of people's perceptions. We're going through that right now with Pot.

30 years down the road alot more people would be doing heroin because its just there na acceptable

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 03:02 PM
I disagree with that. Crime would go up,<font color="#0000ff"> everyone would be high</font> and will not be thinking with a clear head. You look at crime, majority of the perps are high on some sort of drug.

I disagree with that, I don't think there would be a substantial increase in drug use even if everything were made legal, you would gain some because of the ease, you would lose some because doing said drugs would no longer be "taboo"

look at prohibition for alcohol, there was MORE crime when Alcohol was made illegal due to the mob running illegal/underground speakeasy's then there was before and after when Alcohol was legalize....

whose to say the same wouldn't be true with Coke or Herion or Ecstasy....?

you take it as a "FACT" that legalizing drugs will cause more use or more crime etc etc...

I do recognize that that is a "possible" outcome, but I believe (much like prohibition) the opposite outcome would actually happen...just based on prior examples throughout history.

what is your reasoning or basis for believing that legalizing drugs would cause these problems that you say it would?
I don't know if crime would necessarily increase with legalization, but NY06 has a point that the majority of crimes are done by people under the influence of some drug. The prohibition example and effect of previous history is also worth considering. Personally-I think marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol to SOME people.


really? based on what. I never could understand that

I mean if ur talkin on a level of some people just get addicted to everything then i'd have to go back to Davens point and say well theres people addicted to cheeseburgers and video games annd it takes over their lives

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 03:04 PM
I don't know if crime would necessarily increase with legalization, but NY06 has a point that the majority of crimes are done by people under the influence of some drug. The prohibition example and effect of previous history is also worth considering. Personally-I think marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol to SOME people.


I wouldn't argue against the idea that many/most crimes are committed under the influence of some substance, what I'm really arguing is whether legalization would increase these instances....I think those committing crimes under the influence will do so whether or not drugs are legal or illegal...just as I think those who are NOT committing crimes under the influence would still NOT commit said crimes whether drugs were legal or not....I don't particularly thing crime and the legality of drugs are connected...BUT...even assuming they were connected....prior example (Prohibition) shows that when alcohol was "Illegal" crime was actually higher.....whose to say it isn't the same here....

That said having drank my fair share and having partaken in marijuana many times in my younger days...and I still do it from time to time nowadays when it's around during social situations I have to say for ME Alcohol is by far the more dangerous of the two....but I know that it is different from user to user....

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 03:04 PM
My point is the last thing we need is to have any sort of drug at our disposal. Yes this country is in major debt. But by legalizing <u>all </u>drugs would be more harm then good.

I understand that's what you think, I just don't see the logic behind it.

People (including kids) already have ways of finding the same drugs you are against legalizing, but when they find it they are putting themselves in dangerous situations and getting drugs that are cut with all types of chemicals that have way worse symptoms and side effects then the drug itself.

Hypothetical question.

say you have a 16 year old son...now lets say he's gonna by some cocaine...

Assume that you have no way to stop him, he's going to do it and there is nothing you can do.

would you rather him buy it from a corner store, from the local pharmacist and be sure that what he's doing is actually Cocaine and isn't cut with levamisole (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-21/news/29707032_1_levamisole-skin-cocaine) which is a de-worming chemical used in cattle that occasionally causes a flesh eating disease in humans...

or would you rather him drive to the closes shady neighborhood, have him walk into a back alley and meet up with a dealer who has cut the cocaine with levamisole...or who knows what...and maybe get jumped and robbed or who knows what.

which would you rather....hypothetically...

remember you CAN NOT stop him from trying it...so the choice is get it from the local pharmacy or take his chances in the ghetto...which would you prefer.


yea but there is some logic to the fact those dangerous situations do prevent alot of people from doing that stuff.

actually when u bring up the hypothetical it makes me think of how dangerous it could actually be to legalize it. More people would try more drugs which would lead to more addiction...

its gives too many opportunities to be a waste. We are a gluttonous country.

Obviously anybody would want their kid to have the cleanest **** possible if there was no way u could stop it.....

but by having that store 4 other kids in his class that would of never tried coke because of the shadyness are now going into that pharmacy trying it and probably 2 or 3 are going to ge taddicted
That's personal choice and responsibility. If you're dumb enough to not be able to control yourself then why should there be prohibitions because of that on our country's ability to make money? If a guy wants to shoot up whatever at a party or at home and isn't harming anyone else, then why should we care? Now, if he hops in a car and kills someone then charge him for that. This is coming from someone who has never done any drugs, to include mari</p>


I d<font size="6">O</font>n't know. There'<font size="6">S</font> many d<font size="6">I</font>fferent way<font size="6">S</font> Yo<font size="6">U</font> <font size="6">C</font>an loo<font size="6">K</font> atit. <font size="6">S</font>o lets just wait and see.</p>


I was going from the bottom up and saw this---knew it had to be MH...and it was .
</p>


Aimed at Lawl.</p>I was serious about the old guns t-shirt. I will need xxl for the big guns.


me too

XXL pappy - make it happen

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 03:06 PM
I don't know if crime would necessarily increase with legalization, but NY06 has a point that the majority of crimes are done by people under the influence of some drug. The prohibition example and effect of previous history is also worth considering. Personally-I think marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol to SOME people.


I wouldn't argue against the idea that many/most crimes are committed under the influence of some substance, what I'm really arguing is whether legalization would increase these instances....I think those committing crimes under the influence will do so whether or not drugs are legal or illegal...just as I think those who are NOT committing crimes under the influence would still NOT commit said crimes whether drugs were legal or not....I don't particularly thing crime and the legality of drugs are connected...BUT...even assuming they were connected....prior example (Prohibition) shows that when alcohol was "Illegal" crime was actually higher.....whose to say it isn't the same here....

That said having drank my fair share and having partaken in marijuana many times in my younger days...and I still do it from time to time nowadays when it's around during social situations I have to say for ME Alcohol is by far the more dangerous of the two....but I know that it is different from user to user....


yea ubt the addiction of harder drugs is crazy

crackheads will sell their shoes for a rock

there is a difference

ny06
07-22-2011, 03:07 PM
I don't know if crime would necessarily increase with legalization, but NY06 has a point that the majority of crimes are done by people under the influence of some drug. The prohibition example and effect of previous history is also worth considering. Personally-I think marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol to SOME people.


I wouldn't argue against the idea that many/most crimes are committed under the influence of some substance, what I'm really arguing is whether legalization would increase these instances....I think those committing crimes under the influence will do so whether or not drugs are legal or illegal...just as I think those who are NOT committing crimes under the influence would still NOT commit said crimes whether drugs were legal or not....I don't particularly thing crime and the legality of drugs are connected...BUT...even assuming they were connected....prior example (Prohibition) shows that when alcohol was "Illegal" crime was actually higher.....whose to say it isn't the same here....

That said having drank my fair share and having partaken in marijuana many times in my younger days...and I still do it from time to time nowadays when it's around during social situations I have to say for ME Alcohol is by far the more dangerous of the two....but I know that it is different from user to user....


yea ubt the addiction of harder drugs is crazy

crackheads will sell their shoes for a rock

there is a difference
</P>


They would sell there kids. Thats how bad certain drugs are. </P>

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 03:08 PM
I disagree with that. Crime would go up,<font color="#0000ff"> everyone would be high</font> and will not be thinking with a clear head. You look at crime, majority of the perps are high on some sort of drug.

I disagree with that, I don't think there would be a substantial increase in drug use even if everything were made legal, you would gain some because of the ease, you would lose some because doing said drugs would no longer be "taboo"

look at prohibition for alcohol, there was MORE crime when Alcohol was made illegal due to the mob running illegal/underground speakeasy's then there was before and after when Alcohol was legalize....

whose to say the same wouldn't be true with Coke or Herion or Ecstasy....?

you take it as a "FACT" that legalizing drugs will cause more use or more crime etc etc...

I do recognize that that is a "possible" outcome, but I believe (much like prohibition) the opposite outcome would actually happen...just based on prior examples throughout history.

what is your reasoning or basis for believing that legalizing drugs would cause these problems that you say it would?
I don't know if crime would necessarily increase with legalization, but NY06 has a point that the majority of crimes are done by people under the influence of some drug. The prohibition example and effect of previous history is also worth considering. Personally-I think marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol to SOME people.


really? based on what. I never could understand that

I mean if ur talkin on a level of some people just get addicted to everything then i'd have to go back to Davens point and say well theres people addicted to cheeseburgers and video games annd it takes over their lives
Precisely, that's why I was specific to say "some" people. Maybe it is purely those some people that it effects so negatively. We all know them--they are the ones in our groups as kids that smoked a little too much, enjoyed getting high a little too much and never materialized into much more than the auto part store delivery guy. I accept that the point can be made that with these particular people alcohol, pills, etc could of been their catalyst instead of pot-possibly.

Matt--other's like yourself are what I perceive to be extremely high functioning for a pot smoker...just sayin.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 03:08 PM
abd daven i'd disagree of the fact that there was more violence during prohibition

u'd have to put intogether every bar fight, every stadium parking lot fight, every house party fight....

i dunno if i could agree with that

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 03:10 PM
i think your short sighted on that

you have to think of the next generations, for them if its legal their whole lives it would be socially accepted. Popular opinion unfortunately effects alot of people's perceptions. We're going through that right now with Pot.

30 years down the road alot more people would be doing heroin because its just there na acceptable


where is your proof of this?

The reason many people experiment with drugs in the first place is BECAUSE it's illegal...because it's dangerous and risky.....if it wasn't considered such many kids would not start in the first place.

I've not seen a single shred of evidence that would suggest that the legalization of drugs would cause more addicts.

if they legalize pot tomorrow...I think you might get a bit of a boost for a year or two, but over time 10-15-20 years from the point they legalize it...I believe the amount of people smoking pot in the future will be along the same percentage as the amount of people smoke pot now.

Countries that allow minors to drink don't end up with more alcoholics...if anything it's less...

something being socially acceptable...does not make it more popular persay.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 03:10 PM
I disagree with that. Crime would go up,<font color="#0000ff"> everyone would be high</font> and will not be thinking with a clear head. You look at crime, majority of the perps are high on some sort of drug.

I disagree with that, I don't think there would be a substantial increase in drug use even if everything were made legal, you would gain some because of the ease, you would lose some because doing said drugs would no longer be "taboo"

look at prohibition for alcohol, there was MORE crime when Alcohol was made illegal due to the mob running illegal/underground speakeasy's then there was before and after when Alcohol was legalize....

whose to say the same wouldn't be true with Coke or Herion or Ecstasy....?

you take it as a "FACT" that legalizing drugs will cause more use or more crime etc etc...

I do recognize that that is a "possible" outcome, but I believe (much like prohibition) the opposite outcome would actually happen...just based on prior examples throughout history.

what is your reasoning or basis for believing that legalizing drugs would cause these problems that you say it would?
I don't know if crime would necessarily increase with legalization, but NY06 has a point that the majority of crimes are done by people under the influence of some drug. The prohibition example and effect of previous history is also worth considering. Personally-I think marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol to SOME people.


really? based on what. I never could understand that

I mean if ur talkin on a level of some people just get addicted to everything then i'd have to go back to Davens point and say well theres people addicted to cheeseburgers and video games annd it takes over their lives
Precisely, that's why I was specific to say "some" people. Maybe it is purely those some people that it effects so negatively. We all know them--they are the ones in our groups as kids that smoked a little too much, enjoyed getting high a little too much and never materialized into much more than the auto part store delivery guy. I accept that the point can be made that with these particular people alcohol, pills, etc could of been their catalyst instead of pot-possibly.

Matt--other's like yourself are what I perceive to be extremely high functioning for a pot smoker...just sayin.


yea i guess but an alcoholic can be just as big of a lush as a pothead

also the effects of pot vs liqour. All of the drunk driving deaths, **** that happens when people black out

i'd have to say its more dangerous if your comparing the two back to back

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 03:10 PM
I don't know if crime would necessarily increase with legalization, but NY06 has a point that the majority of crimes are done by people under the influence of some drug. The prohibition example and effect of previous history is also worth considering. Personally-I think marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol to SOME people.


I wouldn't argue against the idea that many/most crimes are committed under the influence of some substance, what I'm really arguing is whether legalization would increase these instances....I think those committing crimes under the influence will do so whether or not drugs are legal or illegal...just as I think those who are NOT committing crimes under the influence would still NOT commit said crimes whether drugs were legal or not....I don't particularly thing crime and the legality of drugs are connected...BUT...even assuming they were connected....prior example (Prohibition) shows that when alcohol was "Illegal" crime was actually higher.....whose to say it isn't the same here....

That said having drank my fair share and having partaken in marijuana many times in my younger days...and I still do it from time to time nowadays when it's around during social situations I have to say for ME Alcohol is by far the more dangerous of the two....but I know that it is different from user to user....
Very strong point with the fact that history does tend to repeat itself.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 03:12 PM
i think your short sighted on that

you have to think of the next generations, for them if its legal their whole lives it would be socially accepted. Popular opinion unfortunately effects alot of people's perceptions. We're going through that right now with Pot.

30 years down the road alot more people would be doing heroin because its just there na acceptable


where is your proof of this?

The reason many people experiment with drugs in the first place is BECAUSE it's illegal...because it's dangerous and risky.....if it wasn't considered such many kids would not start in the first place.

I've not seen a single shred of evidence that would suggest that the legalization of drugs would cause more addicts.

if they legalize pot tomorrow...I think you might get a bit of a boost for a year or two, but over time 10-15-20 years from the point they legalize it...I believe the amount of people smoking pot in the future will be along the same percentage as the amount of people smoke pot now.

Countries that allow minors to drink don't end up with more alcoholics...if anything it's less...

something being socially acceptable...does not make it more popular persay.


i think its common sense

say this happens and its all legalized. Some people of our generation and maybe even our kids, but do u think that will translate to our grandchildren and their kids?

I think it would become quickly illegal even in our time again even if it got passed.

****, look at how fast they pulled 4loko

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 03:12 PM
abd daven i'd disagree of the fact that there was more violence during prohibition

u'd have to put intogether every bar fight, every stadium parking lot fight, every house party fight....

i dunno if i could agree with that


I don't think that point is debatable Matt, It's well documented that in Chicago especially but many of the larger cities across America Crime rates literally exploded during prohibition corruption as well.

there is a reason they repealed it, it was bad for the country as a whole to keep alcohol illegal.

I really don't think this point is debatable.

JPizzack
07-22-2011, 03:14 PM
My point is the last thing we need is to have any sort of drug at our disposal. Yes this country is in major debt. But by legalizing <U>all </U>drugs would be more harm then good.

I understand that's what you think, I just don't see the logic behind it.

People (including kids) already have ways of finding the same drugs you are against legalizing, but when they find it they are putting themselves in dangerous situations and getting drugs that are cut with all types of chemicals that have way worse symptoms and side effects then the drug itself.

Hypothetical question.

say you have a 16 year old son...now lets say he's gonna by some cocaine...

Assume that you have no way to stop him, he's going to do it and there is nothing you can do.

would you rather him buy it from a corner store, from the local pharmacist and be sure that what he's doing is actually Cocaine and isn't cut with levamisole (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-21/news/29707032_1_levamisole-skin-cocaine) which is a de-worming chemical used in cattle that occasionally causes a flesh eating disease in humans...

or would you rather him drive to the closes shady neighborhood, have him walk into a back alley and meet up with a dealer who has cut the cocaine with levamisole...or who knows what...and maybe get jumped and robbed or who knows what.

which would you rather....hypothetically...

remember you CAN NOT stop him from trying it...so the choice is get it from the local pharmacy or take his chances in the ghetto...which would you prefer.


yea but there is some logic to the fact those dangerous situations do prevent alot of people from doing that stuff.

actually when u bring up the hypothetical it makes me think of how dangerous it could actually be to legalize it. More people would try more drugs which would lead to more addiction...

its gives too many opportunities to be a waste. We are a gluttonous country.

Obviously anybody would want their kid to have the cleanest **** possible if there was no way u could stop it.....

but by having that store 4 other kids in his class that would of never tried coke because of the shadyness are now going into that pharmacy trying it and probably 2 or 3 are going to ge taddicted
That's personal choice and responsibility. If you're dumb enough to not be able to control yourself then why should there be prohibitions because of that on our country's ability to make money? If a guy wants to shoot up whatever at a party or at home and isn't harming anyone else, then why should we care? Now, if he hops in a car and kills someone then charge him for that. This is coming from someone who has never done any drugs, to include mari</P>


I d<FONT size=6>O</FONT>n't know. There'<FONT size=6>S</FONT> many d<FONT size=6>I</FONT>fferent way<FONT size=6>S</FONT> Yo<FONT size=6>U</FONT> <FONT size=6>C</FONT>an loo<FONT size=6>K</FONT> atit. <FONT size=6>S</FONT>o lets just wait and see.</P>


I was going from the bottom up and saw this---knew it had to be MH...and it was .
</P>


Aimed at Lawl.</P>


I was serious about the old guns t-shirt. I will need xxl for the big guns.


me too

XXL pappy - make it happen
</P>


XXL for me also. I dont even know what it looks like. But if Matt wants one, at least I know it's not a red sox logo.... </P>

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 03:14 PM
I don't know if crime would necessarily increase with legalization, but NY06 has a point that the majority of crimes are done by people under the influence of some drug. The prohibition example and effect of previous history is also worth considering. Personally-I think marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol to SOME people.


I wouldn't argue against the idea that many/most crimes are committed under the influence of some substance, what I'm really arguing is whether legalization would increase these instances....I think those committing crimes under the influence will do so whether or not drugs are legal or illegal...just as I think those who are NOT committing crimes under the influence would still NOT commit said crimes whether drugs were legal or not....I don't particularly thing crime and the legality of drugs are connected...BUT...even assuming they were connected....prior example (Prohibition) shows that when alcohol was "Illegal" crime was actually higher.....whose to say it isn't the same here....

That said having drank my fair share and having partaken in marijuana many times in my younger days...and I still do it from time to time nowadays when it's around during social situations I have to say for ME Alcohol is by far the more dangerous of the two....but I know that it is different from user to user....
Very strong point with the fact that history does tend to repeat itself.


it does... but there are two things you have to really consider

A) we have a much more civilized way off life than back in the time of prohibition

B) i don't think its a realistic comparison of crack/heroin to booze

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 03:16 PM
I disagree with that. Crime would go up,<font color="#0000ff"> everyone would be high</font> and will not be thinking with a clear head. You look at crime, majority of the perps are high on some sort of drug.

I disagree with that, I don't think there would be a substantial increase in drug use even if everything were made legal, you would gain some because of the ease, you would lose some because doing said drugs would no longer be "taboo"

look at prohibition for alcohol, there was MORE crime when Alcohol was made illegal due to the mob running illegal/underground speakeasy's then there was before and after when Alcohol was legalize....

whose to say the same wouldn't be true with Coke or Herion or Ecstasy....?

you take it as a "FACT" that legalizing drugs will cause more use or more crime etc etc...

I do recognize that that is a "possible" outcome, but I believe (much like prohibition) the opposite outcome would actually happen...just based on prior examples throughout history.

what is your reasoning or basis for believing that legalizing drugs would cause these problems that you say it would?
I don't know if crime would necessarily increase with legalization, but NY06 has a point that the majority of crimes are done by people under the influence of some drug. The prohibition example and effect of previous history is also worth considering. Personally-I think marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol to SOME people.


really? based on what. I never could understand that

I mean if ur talkin on a level of some people just get addicted to everything then i'd have to go back to Davens point and say well theres people addicted to cheeseburgers and video games annd it takes over their lives
Precisely, that's why I was specific to say "some" people. Maybe it is purely those some people that it effects so negatively. We all know them--they are the ones in our groups as kids that smoked a little too much, enjoyed getting high a little too much and never materialized into much more than the auto part store delivery guy. I accept that the point can be made that with these particular people alcohol, pills, etc could of been their catalyst instead of pot-possibly.

Matt--other's like yourself are what I perceive to be extremely high functioning for a pot smoker...just sayin.


yea i guess but an alcoholic can be just as big of a lush as a pothead

also the effects of pot vs liqour. All of the drunk driving deaths, **** that happens when people black out

i'd have to say its more dangerous if your comparing the two back to back
You got me there---I have never blacked out from drinking....never. I guess I don't understand that alcoholism at that level, but I have still got pretty ****ed up--hard for me to believe that one can get even more trashed than I have achieved.

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 03:18 PM
i think its common sense

say this happens and its all legalized. Some people of our generation and maybe even our kids, but do u think that will translate to our grandchildren and their kids?

I think it would become quickly illegal even in our time again even if it got passed.

****, look at how fast they pulled 4loko


I don't really understand what you are getting at here, what do you think is common sense? that crime rates will go up? that addiction will go up? that more people will be doing drugs if they are legalized....because if that's what you think is common sense I think you are misinformed, there is that possibility...but it is FAR from a sure thing the opposite is just as likely....if not more likely.

About them pulling fourloko and thinking it would quickly become illegal....that's all irrelevant....they aren't going to legalize all drugs, this is a theoretical conversation on what would happen "IF" they did...so talking about how long it would take for them to be illegal again...or how fast they took 4loco off the shelves is kinda of pointless...

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 03:18 PM
i think your short sighted on that

you have to think of the next generations, for them if its legal their whole lives it would be socially accepted. Popular opinion unfortunately effects alot of people's perceptions. We're going through that right now with Pot.

30 years down the road alot more people would be doing heroin because its just there na acceptable


where is your proof of this?

The reason many people experiment with drugs in the first place is BECAUSE it's illegal...because it's dangerous and risky.....if it wasn't considered such many kids would not start in the first place.

I've not seen a single shred of evidence that would suggest that the legalization of drugs would cause more addicts.

if they legalize pot tomorrow...I think you might get a bit of a boost for a year or two, but over time 10-15-20 years from the point they legalize it...I believe the amount of people smoking pot in the future will be along the same percentage as the amount of people smoke pot now.

Countries that allow minors to drink don't end up with more alcoholics...if anything it's less...

something being socially acceptable...does not make it more popular persay.


i think its common sense

say this happens and its all legalized. Some people of our generation and maybe even our kids, but do u think that will translate to our grandchildren and their kids?

I think it would become quickly illegal even in our time again even if it got passed.

****, look at how fast they pulled 4loko
I could not believe--last night I was shopping with the wife---right on the shelf with the beer--4LOKO--12% alcohol by volume. I thought I read that **** was pulled off the shelves?

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 03:20 PM
abd daven i'd disagree of the fact that there was more violence during prohibition

u'd have to put intogether every bar fight, every stadium parking lot fight, every house party fight....

i dunno if i could agree with that


I don't think that point is debatable Matt, It's well documented that in Chicago especially but many of the larger cities across America Crime rates literally exploded during prohibition corruption as well.

there is a reason they repealed it, it was bad for the country as a whole to keep alcohol illegal.

I really don't think this point is debatable.


i just dont think its as black and white as ur making it seem

there were big differences

In prohibition it was something that was there, that was taken away from the people. They felt their liberties being **** on

this is something that always was banned.

So the truth of the matter is by ur history repeating itself theory, it could work against you.

Booze was legal, Prohibition hits, then they change it back

heroin is illegal, it gets legal, it could very well be changed right back


your also not taking into consideration the advances in society as people. Black people, women, and gays had no rights. Completely different time and mindset

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 03:21 PM
i think your short sighted on that

you have to think of the next generations, for them if its legal their whole lives it would be socially accepted. Popular opinion unfortunately effects alot of people's perceptions. We're going through that right now with Pot.

30 years down the road alot more people would be doing heroin because its just there na acceptable


where is your proof of this?

The reason many people experiment with drugs in the first place is BECAUSE it's illegal...because it's dangerous and risky.....if it wasn't considered such many kids would not start in the first place.

I've not seen a single shred of evidence that would suggest that the legalization of drugs would cause more addicts.

if they legalize pot tomorrow...I think you might get a bit of a boost for a year or two, but over time 10-15-20 years from the point they legalize it...I believe the amount of people smoking pot in the future will be along the same percentage as the amount of people smoke pot now.

Countries that allow minors to drink don't end up with more alcoholics...if anything it's less...

something being socially acceptable...does not make it more popular persay.


i think its common sense

say this happens and its all legalized. Some people of our generation and maybe even our kids, but do u think that will translate to our grandchildren and their kids?

I think it would become quickly illegal even in our time again even if it got passed.

****, look at how fast they pulled 4loko
I could not believe--last night I was shopping with the wife---right on the shelf with the beer--4LOKO--12% alcohol by volume. I thought I read that **** was pulled off the shelves?


It's not the same 4LOKO as before, there used to be truckloads of Taurine and Caffeine among other things....they removed a lot of that....it's still a high[ish] alcohol content drink...but the really problem was the combination of high alcohol and energy boosting.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 03:22 PM
i think its common sense

say this happens and its all legalized. Some people of our generation and maybe even our kids, but do u think that will translate to our grandchildren and their kids?

I think it would become quickly illegal even in our time again even if it got passed.

****, look at how fast they pulled 4loko


I don't really understand what you are getting at here, what do you think is common sense? that crime rates will go up? that addiction will go up? that more people will be doing drugs if they are legalized....because if that's what you think is common sense I think you are misinformed, there is that possibility...but it is FAR from a sure thing the opposite is just as likely....if not more likely.

About them pulling fourloko and thinking it would quickly become illegal....that's all irrelevant....they aren't going to legalize all drugs, this is a theoretical conversation on what would happen "IF" they did...so talking about how long it would take for them to be illegal again...or how fast they took 4loco off the shelves is kinda of pointless...


that future generations wouldn't comprehend or understand or accept the actually damages of a drug like heroin

After 30 years of being legal and being able to get it at the corner store it would be like nothing. Its not a moderation drug. Like people can drink and chill out, theres no like well lets go grab a quick needle before we go to the game.

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 03:23 PM
abd daven i'd disagree of the fact that there was more violence during prohibition

u'd have to put intogether every bar fight, every stadium parking lot fight, every house party fight....

i dunno if i could agree with that


I don't think that point is debatable Matt, It's well documented that in Chicago especially but many of the larger cities across America Crime rates literally exploded during prohibition corruption as well.

there is a reason they repealed it, it was bad for the country as a whole to keep alcohol illegal.

I really don't think this point is debatable.


i just dont think its as black and white as ur making it seem

there were big differences

In prohibition it was something that was there, that was taken away from the people. They felt their liberties being **** on

this is something that always was banned.

So the truth of the matter is by ur history repeating itself theory, it could work against you.

Booze was legal, Prohibition hits, then they change it back

heroin is illegal, it gets legal, it could very well be changed right back


your also not taking into consideration the advances in society as people. Black people, women, and gays had no rights. Completely different time and mindset



<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="75"><col width="75"><tr height="17">
<td style="height:12.75pt;width:56pt" height="17" width="75">http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z46/kcochran777/3d_emoticon_thumbUp.gif</td>
</tr></table>
Did I mention high functioning? and if he stopped smoking.....he'd be building rockets. lol.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 03:23 PM
I disagree with that. Crime would go up,<font color="#0000ff"> everyone would be high</font> and will not be thinking with a clear head. You look at crime, majority of the perps are high on some sort of drug.

I disagree with that, I don't think there would be a substantial increase in drug use even if everything were made legal, you would gain some because of the ease, you would lose some because doing said drugs would no longer be "taboo"

look at prohibition for alcohol, there was MORE crime when Alcohol was made illegal due to the mob running illegal/underground speakeasy's then there was before and after when Alcohol was legalize....

whose to say the same wouldn't be true with Coke or Herion or Ecstasy....?

you take it as a "FACT" that legalizing drugs will cause more use or more crime etc etc...

I do recognize that that is a "possible" outcome, but I believe (much like prohibition) the opposite outcome would actually happen...just based on prior examples throughout history.

what is your reasoning or basis for believing that legalizing drugs would cause these problems that you say it would?
I don't know if crime would necessarily increase with legalization, but NY06 has a point that the majority of crimes are done by people under the influence of some drug. The prohibition example and effect of previous history is also worth considering. Personally-I think marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol to SOME people.


really? based on what. I never could understand that

I mean if ur talkin on a level of some people just get addicted to everything then i'd have to go back to Davens point and say well theres people addicted to cheeseburgers and video games annd it takes over their lives
Precisely, that's why I was specific to say "some" people. Maybe it is purely those some people that it effects so negatively. We all know them--they are the ones in our groups as kids that smoked a little too much, enjoyed getting high a little too much and never materialized into much more than the auto part store delivery guy. I accept that the point can be made that with these particular people alcohol, pills, etc could of been their catalyst instead of pot-possibly.

Matt--other's like yourself are what I perceive to be extremely high functioning for a pot smoker...just sayin.


yea i guess but an alcoholic can be just as big of a lush as a pothead

also the effects of pot vs liqour. All of the drunk driving deaths, **** that happens when people black out

i'd have to say its more dangerous if your comparing the two back to back
You got me there---I have never blacked out from drinking....never. I guess I don't understand that alcoholism at that level, but I have still got pretty ****ed up--hard for me to believe that one can get even more trashed than I have achieved.


i've blacked out like twice in my life

once was only for a couple of hours. Me nad my boys a couple of summers ago went to Jenks at point pleasant. We got rocked all day before we went. We remember getting there and we know we got there at like 1130 cuz we met people. All three of us blacked out the night because all of a sudden last call lights went on and all three of us were like WTF

it was weird

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 03:24 PM
i think your short sighted on that

you have to think of the next generations, for them if its legal their whole lives it would be socially accepted. Popular opinion unfortunately effects alot of people's perceptions. We're going through that right now with Pot.

30 years down the road alot more people would be doing heroin because its just there na acceptable


where is your proof of this?

The reason many people experiment with drugs in the first place is BECAUSE it's illegal...because it's dangerous and risky.....if it wasn't considered such many kids would not start in the first place.

I've not seen a single shred of evidence that would suggest that the legalization of drugs would cause more addicts.

if they legalize pot tomorrow...I think you might get a bit of a boost for a year or two, but over time 10-15-20 years from the point they legalize it...I believe the amount of people smoking pot in the future will be along the same percentage as the amount of people smoke pot now.

Countries that allow minors to drink don't end up with more alcoholics...if anything it's less...

something being socially acceptable...does not make it more popular persay.


i think its common sense

say this happens and its all legalized. Some people of our generation and maybe even our kids, but do u think that will translate to our grandchildren and their kids?

I think it would become quickly illegal even in our time again even if it got passed.

****, look at how fast they pulled 4loko
I could not believe--last night I was shopping with the wife---right on the shelf with the beer--4LOKO--12% alcohol by volume. I thought I read that **** was pulled off the shelves?


It's not the same 4LOKO as before, there used to be truckloads of Taurine and Caffeine among other things....they removed a lot of that....it's still a high[ish] alcohol content drink...but the really problem was the combination of high alcohol and energy boosting.
Ah--so the smart kids combine NO2 and red bulls with it?

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 03:25 PM
i just dont think its as black and white as ur making it seem

Oh, this is anything but a black and white issue


there were big differences

In prohibition it was something that was there, that was taken away from the people. They felt their liberties being **** on

this is something that always was banned.

So the truth of the matter is by ur history repeating itself theory, it could work against you.

Booze was legal, Prohibition hits, then they change it back

heroin is illegal, it gets legal, it could very well be changed right back


your also not taking into consideration the advances in society as people. Black people, women, and gays had no rights. Completely different time and mindset




Most of these are good points, you have to understand, I'm just playing devil's advocate sorta, there are plenty of unknowns and reasons why this could backfire....we just don't know.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 03:25 PM
i think your short sighted on that

you have to think of the next generations, for them if its legal their whole lives it would be socially accepted. Popular opinion unfortunately effects alot of people's perceptions. We're going through that right now with Pot.

30 years down the road alot more people would be doing heroin because its just there na acceptable


where is your proof of this?

The reason many people experiment with drugs in the first place is BECAUSE it's illegal...because it's dangerous and risky.....if it wasn't considered such many kids would not start in the first place.

I've not seen a single shred of evidence that would suggest that the legalization of drugs would cause more addicts.

if they legalize pot tomorrow...I think you might get a bit of a boost for a year or two, but over time 10-15-20 years from the point they legalize it...I believe the amount of people smoking pot in the future will be along the same percentage as the amount of people smoke pot now.

Countries that allow minors to drink don't end up with more alcoholics...if anything it's less...

something being socially acceptable...does not make it more popular persay.


i think its common sense

say this happens and its all legalized. Some people of our generation and maybe even our kids, but do u think that will translate to our grandchildren and their kids?

I think it would become quickly illegal even in our time again even if it got passed.

****, look at how fast they pulled 4loko
I could not believe--last night I was shopping with the wife---right on the shelf with the beer--4LOKO--12% alcohol by volume. I thought I read that **** was pulled off the shelves?


It's not the same 4LOKO as before, there used to be truckloads of Taurine and Caffeine among other things....they removed a lot of that....it's still a high[ish] alcohol content drink...but the really problem was the combination of high alcohol and energy boosting.


yea kids we're blacking out with full energy ... no bueno lol

lttaylor56
07-22-2011, 03:25 PM
I disagree with that. Crime would go up,<font color="#0000ff"> everyone would be high</font> and will not be thinking with a clear head. You look at crime, majority of the perps are high on some sort of drug.

I disagree with that, I don't think there would be a substantial increase in drug use even if everything were made legal, you would gain some because of the ease, you would lose some because doing said drugs would no longer be "taboo"

look at prohibition for alcohol, there was MORE crime when Alcohol was made illegal due to the mob running illegal/underground speakeasy's then there was before and after when Alcohol was legalize....

whose to say the same wouldn't be true with Coke or Herion or Ecstasy....?

you take it as a "FACT" that legalizing drugs will cause more use or more crime etc etc...

I do recognize that that is a "possible" outcome, but I believe (much like prohibition) the opposite outcome would actually happen...just based on prior examples throughout history.

what is your reasoning or basis for believing that legalizing drugs would cause these problems that you say it would?
I don't know if crime would necessarily increase with legalization, but NY06 has a point that the majority of crimes are done by people under the influence of some drug. The prohibition example and effect of previous history is also worth considering. Personally-I think marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol to SOME people.


really? based on what. I never could understand that

I mean if ur talkin on a level of some people just get addicted to everything then i'd have to go back to Davens point and say well theres people addicted to cheeseburgers and video games annd it takes over their lives
Precisely, that's why I was specific to say "some" people. Maybe it is purely those some people that it effects so negatively. We all know them--they are the ones in our groups as kids that smoked a little too much, enjoyed getting high a little too much and never materialized into much more than the auto part store delivery guy. I accept that the point can be made that with these particular people alcohol, pills, etc could of been their catalyst instead of pot-possibly.

Matt--other's like yourself are what I perceive to be extremely high functioning for a pot smoker...just sayin.


yea i guess but an alcoholic can be just as big of a lush as a pothead

also the effects of pot vs liqour. All of the drunk driving deaths, **** that happens when people black out

i'd have to say its more dangerous if your comparing the two back to back
You got me there---I have never blacked out from drinking....never. I guess I don't understand that alcoholism at that level, but I have still got pretty ****ed up--hard for me to believe that one can get even more trashed than I have achieved.


i've blacked out like twice in my life

once was only for a couple of hours. Me nad my boys a couple of summers ago went to Jenks at point pleasant. We got rocked all day before we went. We remember getting there and we know we got there at like 1130 cuz we met people. All three of us blacked out the night because all of a sudden last call lights went on and all three of us were like WTF

it was weird


Point Pleasant is a cool place. Have not been there in a while.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 03:26 PM
i think your short sighted on that

you have to think of the next generations, for them if its legal their whole lives it would be socially accepted. Popular opinion unfortunately effects alot of people's perceptions. We're going through that right now with Pot.

30 years down the road alot more people would be doing heroin because its just there na acceptable


where is your proof of this?

The reason many people experiment with drugs in the first place is BECAUSE it's illegal...because it's dangerous and risky.....if it wasn't considered such many kids would not start in the first place.

I've not seen a single shred of evidence that would suggest that the legalization of drugs would cause more addicts.

if they legalize pot tomorrow...I think you might get a bit of a boost for a year or two, but over time 10-15-20 years from the point they legalize it...I believe the amount of people smoking pot in the future will be along the same percentage as the amount of people smoke pot now.

Countries that allow minors to drink don't end up with more alcoholics...if anything it's less...

something being socially acceptable...does not make it more popular persay.


i think its common sense

say this happens and its all legalized. Some people of our generation and maybe even our kids, but do u think that will translate to our grandchildren and their kids?

I think it would become quickly illegal even in our time again even if it got passed.

****, look at how fast they pulled 4loko
I could not believe--last night I was shopping with the wife---right on the shelf with the beer--4LOKO--12% alcohol by volume. I thought I read that **** was pulled off the shelves?


It's not the same 4LOKO as before, there used to be truckloads of Taurine and Caffeine among other things....they removed a lot of that....it's still a high[ish] alcohol content drink...but the really problem was the combination of high alcohol and energy boosting.
Ah--so the smart kids combine NO2 and red bulls with it?


naaa that **** was already in it lol

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 03:26 PM
abd daven i'd disagree of the fact that there was more violence during prohibition

u'd have to put intogether every bar fight, every stadium parking lot fight, every house party fight....

i dunno if i could agree with that
not sure if there was more violence but they got away with a lot more **** back in the day, thats for sure.

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 03:27 PM
i just dont think its as black and white as ur making it seem

Oh, this is anything but a black and white issue


there were big differences

In prohibition it was something that was there, that was taken away from the people. They felt their liberties being **** on

this is something that always was banned.

So the truth of the matter is by ur history repeating itself theory, it could work against you.

Booze was legal, Prohibition hits, then they change it back

heroin is illegal, it gets legal, it could very well be changed right back


your also not taking into consideration the advances in society as people. Black people, women, and gays had no rights. Completely different time and mindset




Most of these are good points, you have to understand, I'm just playing devil's advocate sorta, there are plenty of unknowns and reasons why this could backfire....we just don't know.


oh trust me i know u are lol

but im just saying the only real likeness prohibition had to this is the fact we're talking about whether something that ****s u up should be illegal or not... in a generic way

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 03:28 PM
abd daven i'd disagree of the fact that there was more violence during prohibition

u'd have to put intogether every bar fight, every stadium parking lot fight, every house party fight....

i dunno if i could agree with that
not sure if there was more violence but they got away with a lot more **** back in the day, thats for sure.


yea thats another good point

simple assault didn't exist then

**** was just handled differently ya know lol

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 03:29 PM
that future generations wouldn't comprehend or understand or accept the actually damages of a drug like heroin

Poppy****! of course they would know about the dangers, infact if it was made legal I would think they would have a much greater appreciation for what it does to the human body....Cigerates are a prime example, you can't light up in a crowded area without someone telling you you are killing yourself....it's legal....but EVERYONE knows the dangers...it would be the same for any drug we legalize.


After 30 years of being legal and being able to get it at the corner store it would be like nothing. Its not a moderation drug. Like people can drink and chill out, theres no like well lets go grab a quick needle before we go to the game.


I completely disagree, the dangers would be WELL known.

dezzzR
07-22-2011, 03:30 PM
abd daven i'd disagree of the fact that there was more violence during prohibition

u'd have to put intogether every bar fight, every stadium parking lot fight, every house party fight....

i dunno if i could agree with that


I don't think that point is debatable Matt, It's well documented that in Chicago especially but many of the larger cities across America Crime rates literally exploded during prohibition corruption as well.

there is a reason they repealed it, it was bad for the country as a whole to keep alcohol illegal.

I really don't think this point is debatable.


i just dont think its as black and white as ur making it seem

there were big differences

In prohibition it was something that was there, that was taken away from the people. They felt their liberties being **** on

this is something that always was banned.

So the truth of the matter is by ur history repeating itself theory, it could work against you.

Booze was legal, Prohibition hits, then they change it back

heroin is illegal, it gets legal, it could very well be changed right back


your also not taking into consideration the advances in society as people. Black people, women, and gays had no rights. Completely different time and mindset



<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="75"><col width="75"><tbody><tr height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 56pt;" width="75" height="17">http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z46/kcochran777/3d_emoticon_thumbUp.gif</td>
</tr></tbody></table>
Did I mention high functioning? and if he stopped smoking.....he'd be building rockets. lol.
i would of taken over the world by now. hahaha

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 03:30 PM
chris johnson was asked on twitter: how do u feel about tiki barber being ur 3rd down back

CJ: Dont need him i'm a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th down back

lol awesome answer

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 03:32 PM
that future generations wouldn't comprehend or understand or accept the actually damages of a drug like heroin

Poppy****! of course they would know about the dangers, infact if it was made legal I would think they would have a much greater appreciation for what it does to the human body....Cigerates are a prime example, you can't light up in a crowded area without someone telling you you are killing yourself....it's legal....but EVERYONE knows the dangers...it would be the same for any drug we legalize.


After 30 years of being legal and being able to get it at the corner store it would be like nothing. Its not a moderation drug. Like people can drink and chill out, theres no like well lets go grab a quick needle before we go to the game.


I completely disagree, the dangers would be WELL known.


ur really not taking into account by it being legal how generally accepted it would be

it would be just another thing in Dare class

MattMeyerBud
07-22-2011, 03:33 PM
abd daven i'd disagree of the fact that there was more violence during prohibition

u'd have to put intogether every bar fight, every stadium parking lot fight, every house party fight....

i dunno if i could agree with that


I don't think that point is debatable Matt, It's well documented that in Chicago especially but many of the larger cities across America Crime rates literally exploded during prohibition corruption as well.

there is a reason they repealed it, it was bad for the country as a whole to keep alcohol illegal.

I really don't think this point is debatable.


i just dont think its as black and white as ur making it seem

there were big differences

In prohibition it was something that was there, that was taken away from the people. They felt their liberties being **** on

this is something that always was banned.

So the truth of the matter is by ur history repeating itself theory, it could work against you.

Booze was legal, Prohibition hits, then they change it back

heroin is illegal, it gets legal, it could very well be changed right back


your also not taking into consideration the advances in society as people. Black people, women, and gays had no rights. Completely different time and mindset



<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="75"><col width="75"><tbody><tr height="17">
<td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 56pt;" height="17" width="75">http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z46/kcochran777/3d_emoticon_thumbUp.gif</td>
</tr></tbody></table>
Did I mention high functioning? and if he stopped smoking.....he'd be building rockets. lol.
i would of taken over the <font size="6">store</font> by now. hahaha


well then i bet ur dad is happy that pot exists

DavenIII
07-22-2011, 03:36 PM
abd daven i'd disagree of the fact that there was more violence during prohibition

u'd have to put intogether every bar fight, every stadium parking lot fight, every house party fight....

i dunno if i could agree with that
not sure if there was more violence but they got away with a lot more **** back in the day, thats for sure.


yea thats another good point

simple assault didn't exist then

**** was just handled differently ya know lol


I don't think it's a debatable point, it's well known that during prohibition the crime rate was much higher then both before and after, it pretty much "created" organized crime in America....it was a terrible idea...bad for everyone in the country...and that's why it was overturned so quickly....

what you "SHOULD" be saying if you are against it....is that 20-30 years from now...assuming everything is legalized tomorrow....lets say we find out that...no it's not working, that it's causing more problems then it's solving...

you can't go back, once you legalize everything for a period of time you can go back...otherwise you subject America to the same sort of situation that we were in during Prohibition, you can't allow people to to H/Coke and E and then all the sudden say ... nope...Illegal now...there would be riots...organized crime would skyrocket....corruption everything would be bad.

that's the chance we would be taking...that's what you guys should be arguing.