MESO-Rx

Anabolic Steroids

Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse

Donald Trump Advocates Shooting Muslims With Bullets Dipped in Pig’s Blood
http://gawker.com/donald-trump-advocates-shooting-muslims-with-bullets-di-1760237641

At his Friday rally in North Charleston, South Carolina, the billionaire racist and Republican frontrunner Donald Trump held forth on a variety of policy issues—including the Affordable Care Act, the intransigence of Congress, and Japan’s devaluation of the yen—before diving, headfirst, into an email chain hoax involving Muslims, pig blood, and a World War I-era Army officer.
 
ironwill1951 said:
their is no doubt trump is the most dangerous man in the world, god help us if he were to get elected, you would not think it would be possible for a man like him to get elected , but I'm from Minnesota and we elected Jessie ventura a pro wrestler as our governor.
Click to expand...
And even Ventura was entertaining.
 
antipcman said:
The major problem is that they all have lined pockets. I'll admit it, I voted for Bush 2x. I know he is a scumbag. I was a wrong about why I voted for him. In hindsight, I still would vote for him against Kerry in 04. Even though he and his father were 2 of the worst presidents ever, I'd still take W over Kerry. The fact is that we haven't had a real president since the 1800s. The only real president we had was assassinated. Look at the Nixon/Reagan/Bush/Clinton War on drugs. I did th numbers awhile ago. I recall the prison population being 450,000 in 76'. In 2006 it was almost 11,000,000 legally incarcerated folks (this can include parole). If the trajectory from the 40s to the mid 70s stayed consistent, we would be just nearing 1 million (there were 250,000 in the early 40s). Think about the cost for drug related officers, investigators, Intel. Think about the cost to incarcerate the "criminal" in PRIVATELY owned jails. That is the biggest elephant in the room. I'm very confident if you eliminated the cost associated with the illegal war on drugs, we would not have nearly as much debt as we have now, let alone the erosion of the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments. Until a president gets up to the pulpit and admits the war on drugs is an epic fail, I'll trust none of them.
Click to expand...

Bush Jr. (and his buddies in the Supreme Court) stole the first election from Gore, to be honest. The Supreme Court's ruling on Bush v. Gore, favored Bush (gotta love the shitty Supreme Court).

"...we know nearly for certain that the recount stopped by the Supreme Court would have given Gore the lead. (Of course, it’s entirely possible that the Republican-controlled Florida legislature would have simply overridden the results of the count and handed the state to Bush, as ithttp://staugustine.com/stories/120700/sta_120700002b.shtml.)

The conclusion was erroneous. The newspapers assumed that the counties would only have looked at “undervotes” — ballots that did not register any votes for president — and ignored “overvotes” — ballots that registered more than one vote for president. An overvote would be a ballot in which the machine mistakenly picked up a second vote for president, or in which a voter both marked a box and wrote in the name of the same candidate. A hand recount in which an examiner is judging the “intent of the voter” would turn those ballots that were originally discarded into countable votes.

Counting overvotes in which the intent of the voter was clear would have resulted in Gore winning the recount. And subsequent reporting by the Orlando Sentinel and Michael Isikoff found that the recount, had it proceeded, almost certainly would have examined overvotes. (Most of the links have been lost over time, but you can find references here and here.)

The newspapers’ error has to be understood in the context of the time. After Bush prevailed in the recount, there was massive pressure to retroactively justify the processes that led to his victory, in the general spirit of restoring confidence in the system. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, that pressure intensified to the point where it was commonly opined that the newspapers ought to entirely cancel the recount (scheduled to come out in November 2001, at the height of the rally-around-Bush moment). In that atmosphere, the newspapers grasped for an interpretation that would both reassure most Americans of what they wanted to believe and avoid placing themselves in opposition to a powerful and bipartisan rallying around Bush that was then at its apogee.

Now, the actual effect of the recount is obviously something of a side issue when assessing the actions of the Court. Nobody knew the outcome of the recount, only that it threatened to make Al Gore president, and stopping it would guarantee Bush’s victory. That is the environment in which five Republican-appointed justices essentially invented a one-time-only ruling to stop the recount. And that’s the relevant history in which to understand the Court’s decision to make up its own new legal theories about the regulation of the health-care market now."

I am fairly confident 9/11 would not have happened under Gore (because he would have listened to the CIA) and I know the Iraq invasion wouldn't have. Bush Jr. destroyed us.
 
Last edited:
Looks like we are down to 3 now, Trump- Rubio- Cruz

Yikes.
either controlled by big money or big religion.
 
TheGuy85 said:
Bush Jr. (and his buddies in the Supreme Court) stole the first election from Gore, to be honest. The Supreme Court's ruling on Bush v. Gore, favored Bush (gotta love the shitty Supreme Court).

"...we know nearly for certain that the recount stopped by the Supreme Court would have given Gore the lead. (Of course, it’s entirely possible that the Republican-controlled Florida legislature would have simply overridden the results of the count and handed the state to Bush, as ithttp://staugustine.com/stories/120700/sta_120700002b.shtml.)

The conclusion was erroneous. The newspapers assumed that the counties would only have looked at “undervotes” — ballots that did not register any votes for president — and ignored “overvotes” — ballots that registered more than one vote for president. An overvote would be a ballot in which the machine mistakenly picked up a second vote for president, or in which a voter both marked a box and wrote in the name of the same candidate. A hand recount in which an examiner is judging the “intent of the voter” would turn those ballots that were originally discarded into countable votes.

Counting overvotes in which the intent of the voter was clear would have resulted in Gore winning the recount. And subsequent reporting by the Orlando Sentinel and Michael Isikoff found that the recount, had it proceeded, almost certainly would have examined overvotes. (Most of the links have been lost over time, but you can find references here and here.)

The newspapers’ error has to be understood in the context of the time. After Bush prevailed in the recount, there was massive pressure to retroactively justify the processes that led to his victory, in the general spirit of restoring confidence in the system. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, that pressure intensified to the point where it was commonly opined that the newspapers ought to entirely cancel the recount (scheduled to come out in November 2001, at the height of the rally-around-Bush moment). In that atmosphere, the newspapers grasped for an interpretation that would both reassure most Americans of what they wanted to believe and avoid placing themselves in opposition to a powerful and bipartisan rallying around Bush that was then at its apogee.

Now, the actual effect of the recount is obviously something of a side issue when assessing the actions of the Court. Nobody knew the outcome of the recount, only that it threatened to make Al Gore president, and stopping it would guarantee Bush’s victory. That is the environment in which five Republican-appointed justices essentially invented a one-time-only ruling to stop the recount. And that’s the relevant history in which to understand the Court’s decision to make up its own new legal theories about the regulation of the health-care market now."

I am fairly confident 9/11 would not have happened under Gore (because he would have listened to the CIA) and I know the Iraq invasion wouldn't have. Bush Jr. destroyed us.
Click to expand...

Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 signed by Clinton. Many politicians were claiming we needed to invade Iraq. Ironically, we have a guy in office now who is accused by republicans for constant anticonstitutionalism. I don't disagree, but where were they in Nixon, Reagan, HW and W's term? Some of the greatest atrocities against the constitution have occurred under a Bush or a Bush proxy. Regardless, they all suck. As much as I hate Hillary and have no doubt she gave the stand down order in Benghazi for political reasons, I have no doubt in my mind that Republicans are just as guilty in similar circumstances.
 
Last edited:
antipcman said:
Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 signed by Clinton. Many politicians were claiming we needed to invade Iraq. Ironically, we have a guy in office now who is accused by republicans for constant anticonstitutionalism. I don't disagree, but where were they in Nixon, Reagan, HW and W's term? Some of the greatest atrocities against the constitution have occurred under a Bush or a Bush proxy. Regardless, they all suck. As much as I hate Hillary and have no doubt she gave the stand down order in Benghazi for political reasons, I have no doubt in my mind that Republicans are just as guilty in similar circumstances.
Click to expand...

Oh I completely agree with you. Neocons, neoliberals, fascists, whacko religious revivalists, and racists, hijacked our democracy and shit on our constitutional rights. You are absolutely right, IMO.

I believe things really went to shit around 1900 (as you mentioned). The Supreme Court has failed, repeatedly, throughout history, to protect our constitutional rights and civil liberties.

"In the USA, the Harrison Act was passed in 1914, and required sellers ofopiates and cocaine to get a license. While originally intended to regulate the trade, it soon became a prohibitive law. It soon became legal precedent that any prescription for a narcotic given by a physician or pharmacist – even in the course of medical treatment foraddiction – constituted conspiracy to violate the Harrison Act. In 1919, theSupreme Court ruled in Doremus that the Harrison Act was constitutional and in Webb that physicians could not prescribe narcotics solely for maintenance.[14] In Jin Fuey Moy v. United States,[25] the court upheld that it was a violation of the Harrison Act even if a physician provided prescription of a narcotic for an addict, and thus subject to criminal prosecution.[26] This is also true of the later Marijuana Tax Act in 1937. Soon, however, licensing bodies did not issue licenses, effectively banning the drugs.

The American judicial system did not initially accept drug prohibition. Prosecutors argued that possessing drugs was a tax violation, as no legal licenses to sell drugs were in existence; hence, a person possessing drugs must have purchased them from an unlicensed source. After some wrangling, this was accepted as federal jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

At the beginning of the 20th century, cocaine began to be linked to crime. In 1900, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an editorial stating, "Negroes in the South are reported as being addicted to a new form of vice – that of 'cocaine sniffing' or the 'coke habit.'"

The drafters (of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act) played on fears of “drug-crazed, sex-mad negroes” and made references to Negroes under the influence of drugs murdering whites, degenerate Mexicans smoking marijuana, and “Chinamen” seducing white women with drugs.[19][20] Dr.Hamilton Wright, testified at a hearing for the Harrison Act. Wright alleged that drugs made blacks uncontrollable, gave them superhuman powers and caused them to rebel against white authority. Dr. Christopher Koch of the State Pharmacy Board of Pennsylvania testified that "Most of the attacks upon the white women of the South are the direct result of a cocaine-crazed Negro brain".[6]"

I might post more on this later. A lot of people have no idea how, nor why, prohibitive drug laws were ever established.
 
Last edited:
TheGuy85 said:
Oh I completely agree with you. Neocons, neoliberals, fascists, whacko religious revivalists, and racists, hijacked our democracy and shit on our constitutional rights. You are absolutely right, IMO.

I believe things really went to shit around 1900 (as you mentioned). The Supreme Court has failed, repeatedly, throughout history, to protect our constitutional rights and civil liberties.

"In the USA, the Harrison Act was passed in 1914, and required sellers ofopiates and cocaine to get a license. While originally intended to regulate the trade, it soon became a prohibitive law. It soon became legal precedent that any prescription for a narcotic given by a physician or pharmacist – even in the course of medical treatment foraddiction – constituted conspiracy to violate the Harrison Act. In 1919, theSupreme Court ruled in Doremus that the Harrison Act was constitutional and in Webb that physicians could not prescribe narcotics solely for maintenance.[14] In Jin Fuey Moy v. United States,[25] the court upheld that it was a violation of the Harrison Act even if a physician provided prescription of a narcotic for an addict, and thus subject to criminal prosecution.[26] This is also true of the later Marijuana Tax Act in 1937. Soon, however, licensing bodies did not issue licenses, effectively banning the drugs.

The American judicial system did not initially accept drug prohibition. Prosecutors argued that possessing drugs was a tax violation, as no legal licenses to sell drugs were in existence; hence, a person possessing drugs must have purchased them from an unlicensed source. After some wrangling, this was accepted as federal jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

At the beginning of the 20th century, cocaine began to be linked to crime. In 1900, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an editorial stating, "Negroes in the South are reported as being addicted to a new form of vice – that of 'cocaine sniffing' or the 'coke habit.'"

The drafters (of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act) played on fears of “drug-crazed, sex-mad negroes” and made references to Negroes under the influence of drugs murdering whites, degenerate Mexicans smoking marijuana, and “Chinamen” seducing white women with drugs.[19][20] Dr.Hamilton Wright, testified at a hearing for the Harrison Act. Wright alleged that drugs made blacks uncontrollable, gave them superhuman powers and caused them to rebel against white authority. Dr. Christopher Koch of the State Pharmacy Board of Pennsylvania testified that "Most of the attacks upon the white women of the South are the direct result of a cocaine-crazed Negro brain".[6]"

I might post more on this later. A lot of people have no idea how, nor why, prohibitive drug laws were ever established.
Click to expand...
I always figured it was a means to eradicate the bill of rights.
 
We're all been royally fucked for the last 7 years....the White House has been lit up like a rainbow and now every country thinks Americans suck dick ....and now the Dumbass in Chief is closing down Gitmo. I'll take Trump, Cruz or Rubio ANYDAY over Obama, Clinton or Sanders...

Vote Republican in Nov
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
TRT doctor
Replies
10
Views
166
iris
iris
H
TRT(+) and a fresh slate.
Replies
8
Views
239
Mr_Fusion
Mr_Fusion
R
New here: My TRT Story
Replies
2
Views
370
DMann
D
C
Steroids. My opinion has changed.
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
4K
ClownCatcher
C
H
New member intro
Replies
0
Views
131
holy02
H

Sponsors

Latest posts

Back
Top