dem beats

Did you buy their album? I loved that CD dearly for about 3 months. It kind of wore away at me after that. On a boat got too much play, so I would get all crabby about it.

they whooped some ass

never been to OC. The older I get the more I wish I had seen more things in my youth. Not that the OC is on the list, just a thought that came to mind. I wish I would have traveled much much much more. Maybe gone to school out of country?

TOP. I wouldn't mind some sun right about now though...

I didn't mind visiting LA. I wouldn't want to stay. And it's WAY too damn expensive.

never mind... I found it. I'm going to crash. I haven't had much more than 3 hours a night since the BS with the W. Now here pops.. Boo A well. What ever will be will be.

???? whom? hows the coast?

pork roast with pears tonight and some mashed taters. Home made garlic butter in therr. OHM NOM NOM NOM

Thanks for explaining. It just seams like everything is more TD's more TD's. Maybe it's just a fad. I haven't ever watched as much football in my life before. Room mate is all amped. He gets to work the game tomorrow Sean.

and that's the real point. The Fed shouldn't be involved in that decision. But where is the line drawn? I mean kids who take shrooms know it will trip them out and are willing to take the risk that they'll do something stupid on them. Should we legalize that? I see where you're coming from, but mushrooms and roids have nothing in common besides the fact that they are both illegal. Shrooms will fuck your head for a period of hours with no gain, medically or personally, but that could be argued. On the other hand, steroids isn't something that changed a person psycologically like mushrooms will. And roids can have medical benefits, personal benefits can be argued. You take too many mushrooms, you fuck your head. I am sure too much of anything isn't good for the body, but you get my point. There's lots of things I don't think the fed should be involved with, but they are, and I have very little power to change any of that. I am against steroids in sports, but at this point it time I am for anything that takes away any bit of power from the federal gov't. I guess if you left it up to the leagues, they probably wouldn't worry. Since, like someone said, more HR, more Buckets, more seats taken, more money. I can understand where you come from but why don't you want the roids in sports? If a player is injured they are given to the player to help heal faster... Maybe it would cause less ijuries if they had a higher bone density, stronger muscles and tendons too. But to me, that's the problem. I think there has to be a limit on how strong a person should be, and it's the natural way. If we let everybody dope up artificially, they all will do it because that's the only way to stay on par with everybody else. Then games will be played by superhuman people. To me, that's not right. I like the natural way. And I don't think it would cause less injuries, because although you'd be bigger, so would the guy hitting you. Not to mention, there has to be long term health effects that will get passed on to children, and then we will deplete ourselves of natural born athletes. I see the other side of the coin. The human body and intake of food can only allow so much strength/muscle to exist on one person. There is only so much in gains you can have given the levers we have. I also disagree that people drinking protein shakes or blended up cans of tuna and alge and eating vitamins even comes close to natural. The ability to make EVERYONE reach their maximum physical and genetic potential would then mean those with talent and dedication would surpass those who merely had a genetic leg up. Since steroids do not change someones DNA it can't really pass anything onto it's children. Since the US is basically filled with fat people who are about to die from heart issues, I think it would be smart to legalize something that would make those with a lower level of a natural hormone be able to get it. We would you outlaw birth control no matter the health concerns involved. That's why Yaz and things similar are still on the market. Do you think that has genetic issues? We don't criminalize women for the use of estrogen or things similar. They take it 99% of the time not to treat disease but merely to either improve looks or life. That's more my point. Most sex hormones are some form of cholesterol that has been changed, yet male versions are not legal. Female are.

what I have heard is many problems with the samsungs.

How far away will you be sitting from the display. As in eyes to screen distance? Will you want to/ do you have the ability to controll the lighting in the room?

Naw I never caught that but my friends used to hate me because I could always catch slip ups in movies and such, sometimes I think Im too observant. I think I have it on DVD. I will look for it next time. Anyway, German cars should have Bilsteins anyway. I'm going to have to rewatch it again myself.... lol

We are in agreement. It can be used for light and truth, or darkness and corruption. It's much like the Force, or guns.

I always cringe when I hear about regulating me so I'm safe.

I also think it should be state law not fed... but what evs.

I agree, to a point; no way in hell do I want crystal meth or heroine legalized, ever :sigh: In reality I am in 100% agreement with you. I do think it's unethical to stop someone from doing meth, but in a world with all the morons about it has to be to protect the unaware i.e. children.

I honestly know so little about football.

might as well More money and time is spent stopping the use even though it's rampant use is everywhere. It doesn't make sense, then goal is to put buts in seats. The more home runs the more TD's the more goals the better. Look at football, the rules are changing every day to make the game far less about defense and more about offense. Disagree. The two foot down rule for WR this year proves that. I'm not going to lie. I don't follow football, but you're saying that the rules aren't in favor of offence and more TD's? What is this new rule?

Leibherr does. Definitely not sub-zero really?? :sad face:

and that's the real point. The Fed shouldn't be involved in that decision. But where is the line drawn? I mean kids who take shrooms know it will trip them out and are willing to take the risk that they'll do something stupid on them. Should we legalize that? I see where you're coming from, but mushrooms and roids have nothing in common besides the fact that they are both illegal. Shrooms will fuck your head for a period of hours with no gain, medically or personally, but that could be argued. On the other hand, steroids isn't something that changed a person psycologically like mushrooms will. And roids can have medical benefits, personal benefits can be argued. You take too many mushrooms, you fuck your head. I am sure too much of anything isn't good for the body, but you get my point. There's lots of things I don't think the fed should be involved with, but they are, and I have very little power to change any of that. I am against steroids in sports, but at this point it time I am for anything that takes away any bit of power from the federal gov't. I guess if you left it up to the leagues, they probably wouldn't worry. Since, like someone said, more HR, more Buckets, more seats taken, more money. I can understand where you come from but why don't you want the roids in sports? If a player is injured they are given to the player to help heal faster... Maybe it would cause less ijuries if they had a higher bone density, stronger muscles and tendons too.

and that's the real point. The Fed shouldn't be involved in that decision. But where is the line drawn? I mean kids who take shrooms know it will trip them out and are willing to take the risk that they'll do something stupid on them. Should we legalize that? I see where you're coming from, but mushrooms and roids have nothing in common besides the fact that they are both illegal. Shrooms will fuck your head for a period of hours with no gain, medically or personally, but that could be argued. On the other hand, steroids isn't something that changed a person psycologically like mushrooms will. And roids can have medical benefits, personal benefits can be argued. You take too many mushrooms, you fuck your head. I am sure too much of anything isn't good for the body, but you get my point. Is it even possible to OD on mushrooms? I would say yes, but it would take so much from what I understand that it wouldn't be easy. most of the classic halucinogens are hard to OD on.

and that's the real point. The Fed shouldn't be involved in that decision. But where is the line drawn? I mean kids who take shrooms know it will trip them out and are willing to take the risk that they'll do something stupid on them. Should we legalize that? I see where you're coming from, but mushrooms and roids have nothing in common besides the fact that they are both illegal. Shrooms will fuck your head for a period of hours with no gain, medically or personally, but that could be argued. On the other hand, steroids isn't something that changed a person psycologically like mushrooms will. And roids can have medical benefits, personal benefits can be argued. You take too many mushrooms, you fuck your head. I am sure too much of anything isn't good for the body, but you get my point. There's lots of things I don't think the fed should be involved with, but they are, and I have very little power to change any of that. Mushrooms stop migraines.... Just sayin. You're point though is in the right track IMHO

seen books that cost more than that by themselves.

and that's the real point. The Fed shouldn't be involved in that decision. But where is the line drawn? I mean kids who take shrooms know it will trip them out and are willing to take the risk that they'll do something stupid on them. Should we legalize that? I'll adress the questions in order. Where is the line drawn? I don't think there should be a line. It's not my governments job to tell me what I should or shouldn't put in my body. That is the end of the story in my opinion. Now you went for the "what about the kids route". So I will be more pragmatic in the rest of what I say. #1 yes, ethicly, I beleive it should be. Allong with meth. You wanna ruin your life, then rock on. Those activities still need regulation. In the case of children, since they are not adults the freedoms and liberties that apply to adults do not nesicarily apply to them. Why can a 17 year old inlist in the military and then possibly die without the ability to buy a beer? Foolish, but as you said a line must be drawn. Make that line age based. #2 The state should decide on if it's a crime. Androgens in general are a scheduled substance and policed by the fed. That is the problem I have, it should be a state issue not a federal one. It is scheduled as such based on a trail held by the FDA in which they said that steroids do not have a medical need. The largest and maybe most moving statement was given by a female who put a ton of male hormones in her and was shocked that it made her more masculine. It's now as bad if not worse than cocaine etc, as it doesn't have a medical use. It's Rxed now to people with AIDS and muscle wasting disease(even though in that trial it was termed that steroids have no performance enhancing abilities and are just harmfull). Testosterone, is even now Rxed to women to boost their sex drive in small doses. #3 All this talk about not giving one group of peoples more chances than another group really is a bad spot. Women can buy OTC estrogen or estrogen like compounds for merely beauty needs. Or as a treatment for being "fridged" or perhaps the morning after when some chick sloots around and doesn't want an accident floating around her womb. My point isn't that the freedoms for others should be limited, just that grown adult men shouldn't be more limited because the method of accurate administration is more diffocult.