PDA

View Full Version : Congressman: NFL's Steroids Policy 'Not Perfect'; Bill Coming Soon


BIG_DADDY
04-27-2005, 01:06 PM
And the micromanagement of all sports by our government grows. What a crock of shit. They are getting ready to pass a bill in California that will impliment mandatory steroid testing for all high school students in sports.


Congressman: NFL's Steroids Policy 'Not Perfect'; Bill Coming Soon
Apr 27, 1:00 PM (ET) Email this Story

By HOWARD FENDRICH
WASHINGTON (AP) - The NFL's steroids policy is tough, "but it's not perfect," the head of a congressional committee said Wednesday, adding that he plans to introduce a bill governing drug testing across the spectrum of U.S. sports.

Rep. Tom Davis opened the House Government Reform Committee's second hearing on steroids by saying the NFL had been more cooperative than Major League Baseball was when its drug program was examined publicly by the panel last month.

But saying that all sports leagues must "acknowledge that their testing programs need improvement," the Virginia Republican added that he and ranking Democrat Henry Waxman of California, along with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., are working on legislation to create uniform policies for major sports.

Such an effort would face obstacles in Congress, which has been reluctant to legislate professional sports policy over the years.

In prepared testimony submitted to the committee, NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue and NFL Players Association chief executive Gene Upshaw said the league is tripling from two to six the number of random offseason tests that players can face.


They also said the league and union recently agreed to add new substances to the list of banned performance enhancers; to put in writing previously agreed-to policies to test for designer steroids; and to lower the testosterone ratio threshold.

"There are numerous issues on which management and labor disagree. ... But there is complete agreement on this: Steroids and other performance-enhancing substances have no place in our game, or anywhere in sports," Upshaw said.

He and Tagliabue sat next to each other and each occasionally jotted notes while some lawmakers criticized the NFL's penalties as too lenient and raised questions about whether amphetamines should be banned.

"Some people might think that this is a fairly weak policy," said Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

While boosting strength, steroids can lead to heart attacks, strokes, cancer, sterility and mood swings; using most steroids without a doctor's prescription for medical purposes has been illegal since 1991.

The NFL began testing in 1987, added suspensions in 1989, and instituted year-round random testing in 1990. Fifty-four players have been suspended.

"The percentage of NFL players who test positive for steroids is very low," Waxman said. "Is this because the policy is working or is this because players have figured out how to avoid detection?"

Tagliabue and Upshaw were among 10 witnesses scheduled to appear, including two doctors who supervise the NFL's testing, and two high school football coaches, one of whom suspended 10 of his players for using steroids.

Gary Wadler, a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency that oversees Olympic drug testing and penalties, knocked the NFL policy for leaving out amphetamines, and he urged the league to adopt blood testing to detect Human Growth Hormone.

In contrast to the March 17 baseball hearing, when several active or retired stars were subpoenaed to testify to much fanfare, only one former player was invited Wednesday: Steve Courson, an offensive lineman for the Pittsburgh Steelers and Tampa Bay Buccaneers from 1978-85. He has admitted using steroids and blames that for a heart condition.

Courson delivered his statement to dozens of empty chairs: Only one member of the committee was present, because others left for a floor vote. Later, when asked by Waxman what percentage of pro football players use steroids today, Courson said: "That would be very hard for me to determine. I've been out of the game for 20 years."

Baseball banned steroids in September 2002 and instituted mandatory 10-day suspensions this season. The National Hockey League does not test players for performance-enhancing drugs, while first-time offenders are suspended for five games in the National Basketball Association.

In the NFL, a first positive test draws a four-game ban - a quarter of the season - and a second gets a six-game suspension. Only two players failed tests twice, and they both retired.

"It's a policy with tough penalties that's getting tougher all the time. But it's not perfect, and that's one of the reasons we're here today," Davis said. "The NFL's testing program has come under heightened scrutiny in recent weeks."

He mentioned a CBS report that a South Carolina doctor wrote steroid prescriptions for three Carolina Panthers in 2003.

tyton75
04-27-2005, 01:23 PM
If they can mandate steroid testing for high school kids... why couldn't they have started testing for ILLEGAL drugs 10 years ago?!?!?!

I think cocaine is a bit worse than a steroid in the grand scheme of things! fugin pillowbiters!

BIG_DADDY
04-27-2005, 01:33 PM
If they can mandate steroid testing for high school kids... why couldn't they have started testing for ILLEGAL drugs 10 years ago?!?!?!

I think cocaine is a bit worse than a steroid in the grand scheme of things! fugin pillowbiters!

This whole thing needs to stop. It's not the governments job to be in sports. All major league sports need to get together right now and give the government one great big :moon:

tk13
04-27-2005, 01:42 PM
The hearing are on ESPN right now. They were grilling Tags on why that Luis Castillo that was drafted by the Chargers shouldn't be suspended. Go for it! ROFL

I don't know, I watched a bit of it earlier, Tags probably could've handled things better. At first he said there were 54 positive tests with their testing system and no repeat offenders, then when pressed about it was 52-54 were no repeat offenders with the other two retiring after the 2nd positive test, then when asked why there was a huge list of offenders, he said there was actually 111 positive tests but 57 of them were "marginal" players who they asked to retire after testing positive. He told three different stories there.

tyton75
04-27-2005, 01:42 PM
Agreed! Doesnt' the gov't have anything better to do... you know they are just trying to get on t.v. and grandstand for reelection.

beer bacon
04-27-2005, 01:48 PM
Perhaps these assholes should focus on revising their War on Drugs policy before bothering with this inconsequential bullshit.

Simplex3
04-27-2005, 01:49 PM
If kids were taught anything in school the entire country would be outraged at this abuse of govt. power. If you assholes have this much free time then it's time to make congress a part time job.

munkey
04-27-2005, 02:21 PM
Using steriods DOES NOT guarantee you a spot on an NFL/MLB roster.


Since there is a select few that can play the game at this level regardless of height and weight why the fuss about steriods? It's the individuals right to shave a few years off there life.

MOhillbilly
04-27-2005, 02:22 PM
Its already a police state why T F should all this suprise anyone?

munkey
04-27-2005, 02:25 PM
He mentioned a CBS report that a South Carolina doctor wrote steroid prescriptions for three Carolina Panthers in 2003.

I have no problem with this....

I also think if a HS kid wants to take them they should be prescribed WITH parental consent of coarse.

The BIGGEST problem with roids is alot of the kids that take them don't know what the fug there doing or how to take care of their body while using them.

Hydrae
04-27-2005, 02:35 PM
Major league sports are PRIVATE organizations. Government just needs to keep the fug out! :cuss:

munkey
04-27-2005, 02:38 PM
Its already a police state why T F should all this suprise anyone?

Just one step closer to the "New World Order"....

Spicy McHaggis
04-27-2005, 02:51 PM
The BIGGEST problem with roids is alot of the kids that take them don't know what the fug there doing or how to take care of their body while using them.

I agree that most kids have no idea what they're putting in their bodies. Combine this with the fact that you have an invincibility complex as a teen and it's easy to make poor decisions. I knew kids and I'm sure many people on the board know kids too that used all sorts of "supplements" in high school or college sports. Whether that is anabolic steroids, things like creatine or even just popping a bunch of Ripped Fuel before a game.

I don't agree with the government interfering though. It is grandstanding, politicians want the face time to further their own career. Let the NFL regulate itself.

BIG_DADDY
04-27-2005, 04:09 PM
Its already a police state why T F should all this suprise anyone?

Absolutely the truth. how long before they kick down our doors for mandatory drug testing? Here is a kicker, the ****ing libbies out here want all bullets to have seriel numbers now and are working on passing legislation to do just that. I would never buy another bullet in this state if that passes.

munkey
04-27-2005, 04:21 PM
Here is a kicker, the ****ing libbies out here want all bullets to have seriel numbers now and are working on passing legislation to do just that. I would never buy another bullet in this state if that passes.

Man there is so much gobment cheese out there waiting to be had...I wonder how many new jobs would be created out of that bill...what would it be called...The bullet inspection department?

Ah....The gobment...

Gotta love it.

BIG_DADDY
04-27-2005, 04:34 PM
Man there is so much gobment cheese out there waiting to be had...I wonder how many new jobs would be created out of that bill...what would it be called...The bullet inspection department?

Ah....The gobment...

Gotta love it.

We have this budget crisis in California and are closing schools because we have no money. Somehow though we are going to manage to find the chingo to impliment mandatory drug testing though for all kids in athletic programs? At this point I don't even know what to say, this is so far beyond ridiculous there just are not words for it. As if we needed one more reason to privatize schools.

Pennywise
04-28-2005, 07:42 AM
The varsity girls track team coach just couldn't seem to win a meet. Six losses in a row!

He decided it would be best if he put his girls on anabolic steroids.
Soon his girls were performing like stars. They went undefeated for the rest of the year.

They won States and were on their way to Nationals. On the bus trip, Sally, the star sprinter struck up a conversation with the coach...

Sally: "Coach, I have a problem!"

Coach: "What's that Sally?"

Sally: "I'm developing thick hair on my body!"

Coach: "What part of your body?"

Sally: "My chest coach."

Coach: "How far does the hair go down Sally?"




Sally: "Well coach, it goes clear down to my balls, which is another thing I wanted to speak with you about!!!"

MOhillbilly
04-28-2005, 08:18 AM
BD its both sides striping our rights away so fast that by the time Americans wake from there slumber it will be to late.
Its one thing to be on a BB bitching its another to be proactive.

munkey
04-28-2005, 08:33 AM
BD its both sides striping our rights away so fast that by the time Americans wake from there slumber it will be to late.
Its one thing to be on a BB bitching its another to be proactive.

Where do you start?

BIG_DADDY
04-28-2005, 10:41 AM
BD its both sides striping our rights away so fast that by the time Americans wake from there slumber it will be to late.
Its one thing to be on a BB bitching its another to be proactive.

What are you suggesting revolution?

I am a Libertarian, I figured that was the best place to start.


Here we go, the NBA is next. ROFL Give the gubment an inch they want the entire universe.


(AP) Harold Henderson, NFL Executive Vice President, Labor Relations, testifies during a hearing at the...
Full Image

NFL Done, Congressmen Turn Next to NBA
Apr 28, 10:14 AM (ET) Email this Story

By HOWARD FENDRICH
WASHINGTON (AP) - First, Major League Baseball was summoned by Congress and chastised for a steroids policy that the sport promptly altered. Next up was the NFL, which strengthened its drug program on the eve of a trip to Capitol Hill.

Now it's the NBA's turn to face lawmakers, and commissioner David Stern already is talking about getting tougher testing into a new deal with his players' union.

Even as the House Government Reform Committee moves closer to offering legislation establishing uniform steroid rules for major U.S. sports, the leagues themselves are changing their programs.

"I don't know how the public feels about this, but I think members are pretty united on this. It's a huge issue, and it needs to be taken care of," chairman Tom Davis, R-Va., said after Wednesday's five-hour session on football.

"That's why it's important consulting with the NFL, Major League Baseball - we'll be doing the NBA next - talking about what their policies are so we don't do something stupid as we implement it."


Worried that steroid use among pro athletes encourages youths to try the drugs, the committee is examining the testing policies of more than a half-dozen sports.

"How is the average American supposed to look at the size, strength and speed of today's NFL linebackers and not conclude that they might be taking performance-enhancing drugs?" Davis asked NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

Said Tagliabue: "We don't feel that there is rampant cheating in our sport."

The proceedings were not nearly as contentious as on March 17, when Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and other current and former baseball stars were compelled to appear and faced direct questions about whether they and other players used steroids. Baseball commissioner Bud Selig, also a witness, was roundly criticized for his sport's policy, which lawmakers said was too lenient.

More than once Wednesday, congressmen prefaced remarks or questions by calling the NFL's appearance a "breath of fresh air."


(AP) Gene Upshaw, NFL Players Association executive director testifies during a hearing at the House...
Full Image

"With all due respect, the commissioner of baseball hadn't even read the document that he had given us," Connecticut Republican Christopher Shays said. "I kind of love you guys, and yet I shouldn't because I still have problems."

In particular, he asked why a player would have to fail four tests before getting banned for life. Some lawmakers asked the 10 witnesses whether the size of today's NFL players is evidence of steroid use. Others asked whether amphetamines should be banned and when growth hormone will be checked for (Tagliabue said there's no credible test yet).

The NFL announced Tuesday that it's tripling from two to six the number of random offseason tests that players can face. The league is also adding to its list of banned performance-enhancers.

The NFL began testing for steroids in 1987, added suspensions in 1989, and instituted year-round random testing in 1990. Fifty-four players have been suspended, and Tagliabue said an additional 57 retired after testing positive. A first offense carries a four-game ban.

"We would be naive to not be aware that there are people out there who are trying to stay ahead of the curve," NFL Players Association chief executive Gene Upshaw said. "As soon as we find out about something, we do something about it."


(AP) NFL Commisioner Paul Tagliabue, testifies during a hearing at the House Committee on Government...
Full Image

Baseball banned steroids in September 2002, instituted mandatory 10-day suspensions this season - and only eliminated a provision allowing for fines instead of bans after facing the committee.

The NHL does not test players for performance-enhancing drugs, while the NBA suspends first-time offenders for five games.

Stern, attending a playoff game in Chicago, said league officials "absolutely" would testify if asked, although he noted there are time constraints right now, including the postseason and labor negotiations.

Those talks include the possibility of expanded testing for performance-enhancing drugs.

"It's incumbent upon every sport to just have rules that demonstrate to their fans that, if you're in the NBA, you submit to a certain amount of testing," Stern said. "It's really a covenant with the fans, especially the young ones."

MOhillbilly
04-28-2005, 11:02 AM
grass roots,its what i do. our money goes to lobby in washington and a defense funds for our home states and national defense funds for criminal court and class actions.
We're sick of people telling us whats right when they can even keep there own backyard straight.
AAHC-PAC,MOGBA,UGBA,NRA. get the drift?
I know this is my own agenda and some of you will laugh.
But it wont be funny when its something you love.

Calcountry
04-28-2005, 11:08 AM
This whole thing needs to stop. It's not the governments job to be in sports. All major league sports need to get together right now and give the government one great big :moon:If I may, merely from a philosophical standpoint, ask you Big Daddy. Just exactly HOW much government do you think there SHOULD be in a free Republic as we have in the United States?

Anarchy rocks Dude!:rolleyes:

BIG_DADDY
04-28-2005, 11:17 AM
If I may, merely from a philosophical standpoint, ask you Big Daddy. Just exactly HOW much government do you think there SHOULD be in a free Republic as we have in the United States?



As little as humanly possible. You may like living in a police state but I would prefer living only half my life in a truly free society.

MOhillbilly
04-28-2005, 11:25 AM
on a line left being anarchy right being total police state.
We are much closer to the right than is comfortable.
pork barrel politics are puting a strangle hold on freedom.
Can anyone here say we are more free than in our grandfathers time?

both sides are ****ed.fight fire w/ fire. Your vote means shit when both sides are only interested in the money they can make from special intrest and tax payers.
**** em!

Simplex3
04-28-2005, 11:28 AM
If I may, merely from a philosophical standpoint, ask you Big Daddy. Just exactly HOW much government do you think there SHOULD be in a free Republic as we have in the United States?

Anarchy rocks Dude!:rolleyes:
I tend to try and follow the powers the govt has outlined in the little-read and oft-ignored document called "The Constitution". You may have heard of it if you didn't go to a public school.

http://www.sobran.com/tyranny.shtml

If Washington and Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton could come back, the first thing they’d notice would be that the federal government now routinely assumes thousands of powers never assigned to it — powers never granted, never delegated, never enumerated. These were the words they used, and it’s a good idea for us to learn their language. They would say that we no longer live under the Constitution they wrote. And the Americans of a much later era — the period from Cleveland to Coolidge, for example — would say we no longer live even under the Constitution they inherited and amended.

Calcountry
04-28-2005, 11:29 AM
As little as humanly possible. You may like living in a police state but I would prefer living only half my life in a truly free society.

Its just you are constantly throwing thread after thread about how much the government sucks dude. Is there fuggin anything that they do that is good in your eyes.

Fug it, maybe they should all just go away and lets revert the wild wild west. Rule of law is a 6 shooter.

Fug, rape, smoke, fuggin anything you want without restraint, yeah, thats what I want.

Simplex3
04-28-2005, 11:29 AM
on a line left being anarchy right being total police state.
We are much closer to the right than is comfortable.
pork barrel politics are puting a strangle hold on freedom.
Can anyone here say we are more free than in our grandfathers time?

both sides are ****ed.fight fire w/ fire. Your vote means shit when both sides are only interested in the money they can make from special intrest and tax payers.
**** em!
Two words: Libertarian Party.

Simplex3
04-28-2005, 11:32 AM
Its just you are constantly throwing thread after thread about how much the government sucks dude. Is there fuggin anything that they do that is good in your eyes.

Fug it, maybe they should all just go away and lets revert the wild wild west. Rule of law is a 6 shooter.

Fug, rape, smoke, fuggin anything you want without restraint, yeah, thats what I want.
I've said for years that the issue is that we take segments of other people's arguments at face value and never challenge them to their core. When some snapperhead in KC proposes light rail we argue about costs when the real argument is "who will ride it?". For example:

Consider this. We have recently had a big national debate over national health care. Advocates and opponents argued long and loud over whether it could work, what was fair, how to pay for it, and so forth. But almost nobody raised the basic issue: Where does the federal government get the power to legislate in this area? The answer is: Nowhere. The Constitution lists 18 specific legislative powers of Congress, and not a one of them covers national health care.

BIG_DADDY
04-28-2005, 11:38 AM
Its just you are constantly throwing thread after thread about how much the government sucks dude. Is there fuggin anything that they do that is good in your eyes.

Fug it, maybe they should all just go away and lets revert the wild wild west. Rule of law is a 6 shooter.

Fug, rape, smoke, fuggin anything you want without restraint, yeah, thats what I want.

:rolleyes:

So police state or wild wild west huh, OK.

Simplex3
04-28-2005, 11:41 AM
Let me address the all-to-common "you want anarchy" theory. You've just fallen into the trap of not analyzing the evidence carefully enough and taking someone else's argument at face value. (Most) Libertarians have no interest in anarchy. Yes, I want the feds trimmed to their original 18 powers. What does that mean, who is going to fill in the gaps? THE STATES.

The word "State" meant "Country" at the time of the Constitution's writing. We were meant to be 50 COUNTRIES with common defense, banking, foreign relations, transit, etc. We were meant to have a common set of rights from one of the 50 countries to another (The Bill of Rights). We were never supposed to be one huge damn country.

The 17th Amendment (direct election of Senators) was the final nail in that coffin. The govt. educating you made sure you didn't understand it was overreaching. Then they took the Senate, the last way for the States to exert their own rights, and put that in the hands of the dumbed-down masses. It has worked out for them brilliantly.

MOhillbilly
04-28-2005, 11:42 AM
Anarchy rocks Dude!:rolleyes:


Vet?

Calcountry
04-28-2005, 11:53 AM
on a line left being anarchy right being total police state.
We are much closer to the right than is comfortable.
pork barrel politics are puting a strangle hold on freedom.
Can anyone here say we are more free than in our grandfathers time?

both sides are ****ed.fight fire w/ fire. Your vote means shit when both sides are only interested in the money they can make from special intrest and tax payers.
**** em!Couldn't have said it better, but, do we eliminate ALL government as a response?

Calcountry
04-28-2005, 11:55 AM
I tend to try and follow the powers the govt has outlined in the little-read and oft-ignored document called "The Constitution". You may have heard of it if you didn't go to a public school.

http://www.sobran.com/tyranny.shtml I went to College, but it was filled with Marxists and Socialists. It wasn't until after I left college that I realized a truer state of existence than the propeller heads were pontificating.

Calcountry
04-28-2005, 11:57 AM
Vet?I Myself am not one, but my Father, Uncle, were, and my cousin is. Served 2 tours of Duty in Iraq. I am pround of all who serve, but especially these mentioned.

Calcountry
04-28-2005, 12:00 PM
:rolleyes:

So police state or wild wild west huh, OK.All due respect man, I like you. You are one of the coolest posters here. I was just trying to see where you draw the line, or if there is a line in your "moral compass".

Its not either or. I like the "government that governs best governs least" Philosophy, but I didn't say NO government at all, they have a function in our society. Many of the blessings of liberty come from having a respected and viable police force.

Your sister is in law enforcement? I don't get it dude?

Calcountry
04-28-2005, 12:02 PM
Let me address the all-to-common "you want anarchy" theory. You've just fallen into the trap of not analyzing the evidence carefully enough and taking someone else's argument at face value. (Most) Libertarians have no interest in anarchy. Yes, I want the feds trimmed to their original 18 powers. What does that mean, who is going to fill in the gaps? THE STATES.

The word "State" meant "Country" at the time of the Constitution's writing. We were meant to be 50 COUNTRIES with common defense, banking, foreign relations, transit, etc. We were meant to have a common set of rights from one of the 50 countries to another (The Bill of Rights). We were never supposed to be one huge damn country.

The 17th Amendment (direct election of Senators) was the final nail in that coffin. The govt. educating you made sure you didn't understand it was overreaching. Then they took the Senate, the last way for the States to exert their own rights, and put that in the hands of the dumbed-down masses. It has worked out for them brilliantly.I didn't fall into any trap, you supplied where your line is, I was trying to get the same out of big D, I failed miserably.

I merely offered the Anarchy as an extreme, as in, just wondering where the line is.

Calcountry
04-28-2005, 12:03 PM
I have to go on the road, and will be away from the computer for a couple of hours, not dogging any of you. bye

BIG_DADDY
04-28-2005, 12:03 PM
Couldn't have said it better, but, do we eliminate ALL government as a response?

Come on your giving ridiculous answers as alternatives. We definately need a smaller government. Refusing to vote for anyone in either of the 2 big parties and becoming a Libertarian is a good start. Pointing out how big and controlling our government has become to others is another. I am Libertarian but I need to start doing more work for the party, that will be my next step.

MOhillbilly
04-28-2005, 12:05 PM
Couldn't have said it better, but, do we eliminate ALL government as a response?

No. But some real limitations on where our tax money goes and hows its spent and how much special intrest has a say(per a donation cap) would be a good start.
You dont make REAL money in politics from your salary.Who T F in there right mind would wanna be president for any reason other than GOBS of cash.
Are these the best canidates or the best who will run?


leting the states take control of there own problems w/out the federal govt. telling them that if you dont you'll loose this funding even if its not right for that state.
the flat law for all states from the federal govt is bullshit.
(i dont have a solution)


HOLDING ELECTED OFFICIALS TO WHAT THEY SAY THEY WILL DO AND NOT DO>NOT JUST WHAT DIRECTION THE WIND TAKES THERE VALUES.

MOhillbilly
04-28-2005, 12:07 PM
I Myself am not one, but my Father, Uncle, were, and my cousin is. Served 2 tours of Duty in Iraq. I am pround of all who serve, but especially these mentioned.

Just wondering cause your POV reminds me of my dad who was a Vet,and had witnessed anarchy first hand.
had a hard stance for more govt.......though i think he kinda got lost in his own rhetoric sometimes.None the less he took a hard stance.

BIG_DADDY
04-28-2005, 12:09 PM
All due respect man, I like you. You are one of the coolest posters here. I was just trying to see where you draw the line, or if there is a line in your "moral compass".

Its not either or. I like the "government that governs best governs least" Philosophy, but I didn't say NO government at all, they have a function in our society. Many of the blessings of liberty come from having a respected and viable police force.

Your sister is in law enforcement? I don't get it dude?

Yes my sister is in law enforcement and we certainly don't see eye to eye on all issues. I have to say the longer she has been in law enforcement though the more I see her begin to side with me on some issues like this ridiculous war on drugs with the exception of meth. She will be the first to tell you the government has become WAY too big as well. She will always be more conservative than me though.

MOhillbilly
04-28-2005, 12:14 PM
Yes my sister is in law enforcement and we certainly don't see eye to eye on all issues.

Fear not BD im trying to get on at County.

Shit ya not boys.

BIG_DADDY
04-28-2005, 12:47 PM
Fear not BD im trying to get on at County.

Shit ya not boys.

Maybe Denverchief can get you a job with him, that would make an interesting team. ROFL

MOhillbilly
04-28-2005, 12:51 PM
Maybe Denverchief can get you a job with him, that would make an interesting team. ROFL

gross

BIG_DADDY
04-28-2005, 12:53 PM
gross


ROFL ROFL ROFL Sorry, couldn't help myself.

MOhillbilly
04-28-2005, 01:01 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL Sorry, couldn't help myself.

:shake:thats just gay dude.:shake:

Calcountry
04-28-2005, 03:42 PM
Just wondering cause your POV reminds me of my dad who was a Vet,and had witnessed anarchy first hand.
had a hard stance for more govt.......though i think he kinda got lost in his own rhetoric sometimes.None the less he took a hard stance.Guys, I am closer to your philosophy than I am letting on here. The whole reason that I chose to "throw down" with Big D here is that he is becoming fervent with his anti government threads, almost to the point of obsession. I am just trying to see where this is all coming from, and where is the line, if any, on whether or not he believes there SHOULD be a government.

My Philosophy teacher in College was a self described, "Card Carrying Libertarian", and I have a good Idea on what his position was on the proper scope and function of the government was. I posited the question to Troy wondering if I would get a similar answer as the prof, as most Libertarians have well thought out positions.

Thats all.

philfree
04-28-2005, 03:59 PM
I guess it's because of the lime light but why is congress so concerned about the small number of people that are employed by the NFL? Perhaps they should police the HS and College athletes instead of the pros? Seems to me that would be a much wider and far reaching tact.


PhilFree:arrow:

BIG_DADDY
04-28-2005, 05:10 PM
Guys, I am closer to your philosophy than I am letting on here. The whole reason that I chose to "throw down" with Big D here is that he is becoming fervent with his anti government threads, almost to the point of obsession. I am just trying to see where this is all coming from, and where is the line, if any, on whether or not he believes there SHOULD be a government.

My Philosophy teacher in College was a self described, "Card Carrying Libertarian", and I have a good Idea on what his position was on the proper scope and function of the government was. I posited the question to Troy wondering if I would get a similar answer as the prof, as most Libertarians have well thought out positions.

Thats all.

No biggy, my passion is probably rooted in living the The People's Republic of California where most of our polititians don't deserve the air they breath.

BIG_DADDY
04-28-2005, 05:11 PM
I guess it's because of the lime light but why is congress so concerned about the small number of people that are employed by the NFL? Perhaps they should police the HS and College athletes instead of the pros? Seems to me that would be a much wider and far reaching tact.


PhilFree:arrow:

There doing that here in California. Apparently we have money to spend to test all the kids in sports we just don't have enough money to keep the schools open, go figure.