|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by NEW_IN_THE_GAME
well i just bought arnolds pumping iron, and it shows him getting blazed after his last win, when he retired. so who knows
|
|
Originally Posted by mrA
just wondering, would this be a such a bad idea? i have seen it in movies like American buety, i hear u can really concentrate on your mucles. can someone help me out?
|
|
Originally Posted by mrA
wow so much hate... so i'll take it as a bad idea...?>
|
|
Originally Posted by Carl Nevins
Smoking is bad habit. Try smoking a joint while doing 20 rep squats.
|
im sure they wont mind me smoking weed in the rack 
|
Originally Posted by kicka19
vaporizores do not take all the "bad stuff" out
|
|
Originally Posted by CowPimp
Actually, they do. All carcinogens are contained in the plant material. The strikes against your health come in the form of the burnt plant material, not the chemicals contained in the residue on the plant material (THC, CBD, CBN, etc.).
|
|
Originally Posted by The13ig13adWolf
stop promoting drug use...
|
|
Originally Posted by mrA
just wondering, would this be a such a bad idea? i have seen it in movies like American buety, i hear u can really concentrate on your mucles. can someone help me out?
|
|
Originally Posted by CowPimp
I'm just telling the truth. I'm promoting responsible drug use, if that is your decision.
|
|
Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin
I don't believe drugs can really be used responsibly. They cause the drugged to do things they wouldn't normally do and impair the decision-making process. This may be what police officers, etc. parrot to other people, but it's true. When you've seen others throw away their lives because of what started off as 'responsible drug use' it doesn't seem very responsible or something to promote anymore...
|
|
Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin
I don't believe drugs can really be used responsibly. They cause the drugged to do things they wouldn't normally do and impair the decision-making process. This may be what police officers, etc. parrot to other people, but it's true. When you've seen others throw away their lives because of what started off as 'responsible drug use' it doesn't seem very responsible or something to promote anymore...
|
|
Originally Posted by CowPimp
What do you call occasional drinkers? That is responsible drug use. I hate the term drugs and alcohol. Alcohol is a drug, and a very serious one at that. In fact, I will go so far as to say that it is worse than the vast majority of illegal drugs.
I am a responsible drug user. I refuse to do any drug I have not researched. Pretty much at this stage of the game I just stick to pot with only the very rare foray into anything else. Furthermore, I will not smoke pot unless I have taken care of everything I need to do for the day: exercise, studying, work, etc. If I don't have time to smoke, then I don't. I generally end up only smoking on the weekends. |
|
Originally Posted by kenwood
how about lifting and doing crystal meth?
|
|
Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin
It's just that it really isn't always the person that makes the difference. Sometimes they are affected by the same amount of alcohol in a much different way. They should see how it will affect them before continuing to drink, but not everyone has that common sense. With other drugs, this can easily happen and make the person addicted. Not everyone researches what they do. In fact, I'd say it's a very tiny percentage that does.
Many people who appear to be responsible users really are addicted and don't think there's anything wrong with it. I know someone whose parents drink all the time. They're not drunks, but they drink a lot and they're not always in the right state of mind because of it. When I first realized what was happening, it broke my heart to tell you the truth. It's just my experience that use usually turns into abuse. That's why I think avoiding it altogether is best. I was definitely only talking about certain drugs. I tend not to be specific enough when I say things like this... |
|
Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin
I know. It's just that most people who use them probably abuse them. Think of how many people actually use recreational drugs responsibly as compared to the number of irresponsible users. I'd bet the irresponsible users is the bigger group. Most people are just fugging stupid.
|
|
Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin
I know. It's just that most people who use them probably abuse them. Think of how many people actually use recreational drugs responsibly as compared to the number of irresponsible users. I'd bet the irresponsible users is the bigger group. Most people are just fugging stupid.
|
|
Originally Posted by Dale Mabry
A bigger group of people voted for the wrong candidate as president last year (ie., GW Bush), does that mean we should revoke everyone's right to vote?
|
|
Originally Posted by CowPimp
No, we should just shuttle everyone who voted for Bush into outer space. They can start their own fucked up nation on the moon.
|
|
Originally Posted by CowPimp
No, we should just shuttle everyone who voted for Bush into outer space. They can start their own fucked up nation on the moon.
|
|
Originally Posted by CowPimp
Total speculation. The media just likes to perpetuate the myth that the typical drug user a bum getting warm by a trashcan fire or some guy tripping and jumping out of a building. They don't like to show you the businessman who responsibly uses cocaine. They don't like to show you the guy who has a couple of beers now and again. They don't like to show you the straight A students who smoke pot reasonably.
Seeing as how you are obviously not a user in any capacity, you don't see what I do. Yes, there are a Hell of a lot of people who shouldn't be using drugs. At the same time, there are a Hell of a lot of people who do it right. The people who do it right are more low-key about it, and therefore are less prone to the judgemental eyes of their peers. |
|
Originally Posted by Dale Mabry
Actually, you forgot about Poland.
|
|
Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin
I know. It's just that most people who use them probably abuse them. Think of how many people actually use recreational drugs responsibly as compared to the number of irresponsible users. I'd bet the irresponsible users is the bigger group. Most people are just fugging stupid.
|
|
Originally Posted by squanto
So yeah, you could do it if you want to i guess, but it's not going to give you special powers.
|
|
Originally Posted by CowPimp
Wrong. It gave me x-ray vision.
|
|
Originally Posted by kicka19
i have heard that its lowers test level, i havent heard it lowers it below estorgen levels, nor have i heard the lower last for two days, this doesnt make much sence seeing as i smoke at least 3-4 times a week, so i should have redic low test levels? i doubt this
|
|
Originally Posted by smallfry
why dont you smoke pcp then put 500 on bench get someone to pick it up over you then let it go ....you wont feel a thing but then you would have to worry about is beeing able to breathe with a shatter rib cage
|
|
Originally Posted by soxmuscle
it will be funny when squaggle is peer pressured into drinking or smoking some time throughout his high school tenure.
|
|
Originally Posted by soxmuscle
it will be funny when squaggle is peer pressured into drinking or smoking some time throughout his high school tenure.
|
|
Originally Posted by CowPimp
However, at the same time, plenty of people drive irresponsibly, use firearms irresponsibly, eat food irresponsibly, etc.
|
|
Originally Posted by Dale Mabry
A bigger group of people voted for the wrong candidate as president last year (ie., GW Bush), does that mean we should revoke everyone's right to vote?
|
|
Originally Posted by cfs3
And you think John Kerry was the right one?! That dumbfuck couldn't make a decision if his life depended on it.
|
|
Originally Posted by cfs3
None of which are addictive psychotropic drugs.
|
|
Originally Posted by mrA
just wondering, would this be a such a bad idea? i have seen it in movies like American buety, i hear u can really concentrate on your mucles. can someone help me out?
|
|
Originally Posted by Zac_Champigny
Obviously Kerry's votes were to please constituants, which does not make him a dumbfuck. Bush's inablilty to speak words, or do many things right makes him a dumbfuck.
|
|
Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin
I'd rather have a president with the ablility to make a decision than one with the ability to publicly speak. After all, the only things that really matter in life are the things you write down...
|
|
Originally Posted by CowPimp
Oh he can make decisions alright. Wrong decisions.
|
|
Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin
Better than doing nothing. I'd rather go to war than sit on my ass and wait for the next attack.
|
|
Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin
Actually I'm very behind when it comes to the news. Not one single person from Al Queda was hiding in Iraq and had to move because of troops moving in? What about Hussein? He wasn't exactly a good leader. What if they did have weapons of mass destruction? Isn't it better to at least check? Plus we've been trying to catch the Taliban, etc. - would Kerry have said not to do that too? Seems kind of stupid.
|
| Personally, I think we should train our citizens to get pissed off at anyone who threatens us. For example, someone breaks into your house. You get a few bats with barbed wire tied around them and wake everyone up and give them one of these weapons. You do whatever it takes to kill, decapacitate, etc. the thief. If this happens enough, people aren't particularly going to want to try breaking into houses anymore. Same thing with a plain - have every person get absolutely pissed at whoever tries to hijack it. They can only take out so many of the people on the plane before they die, really. Crazy? Yes. Effective? Yes. Muahahhahaha... I'm in a really weird mood today. |
|
Originally Posted by CowPimp
The question is not as to whether or not there is a single person in Iraq that belongs to Al Queda. There is no question that there is. However, there is also no question that there are members of Al Queda in the US. A few people doesn't warrant a war.
I never said Hussein was a good leader. Throwing out dictatorships is not something the US typically does. We like to install dictatorships. There were obviously other reasons for going to war with them. |
|
Originally Posted by CowPimp
You make it sound so easy to "at least check" for weapons of mass destruction. Those few little words equate to killing tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens. What if everyone on the planet decided that whenever they suspected someone of doing something bad they should attack them? We would be in perpetual war throughout the glove. Pre-emptive war is wrong. Period.
|
|
Originally Posted by CowPimp
I don't know what Kerry would have done. Speculating on that is pointless. The point is that the results of Bush's decision are not favorable.
|
|
Originally Posted by CowPimp
Analogies like this don't really equate to that of international foreign relations, sorry.
|
|
Originally Posted by Zac_Champigny
Obviously Kerry's votes were to please constituants, which does not make him a dumbfuck. Bush's inablilty to speak words, or do many things right makes him a dumbfuck.
|
|
Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin
That was basically my point there. It wasn't the only reason.
|
| I don't remember tens of thousands of people dying when they sent teams in to check with their permission. This didn't involve any attacks. I could be thinking of something else entirely though. I don't believe pre-emptive war is always wrong. If you know someone is going to attack you, why would you wait? |
| Speculating on that is actually very relevant to the argument - we were comparing Bush and Kerry in the first place and it'd be interesting to know what he would have done. That is, if he could make a decision... His results were favorable in that he liberated an entire country from a dictator and set up a democracy. Even the Iraqi people agree with that. |
| It wasn't an analogy. It's just my opinion of what we should do. |
|
Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin
I'd rather have a president with the ablility to make a decision than one with the ability to publicly speak. After all, the only things that really matter in life are the things you write down...
|
|
Originally Posted by mrA
just wondering, would this be a such a bad idea? i have seen it in movies like American buety, i hear u can really concentrate on your mucles. can someone help me out?
|
|
Originally Posted by Zac_Champigny
So what your basically saying is you would rather have a president who makes his choices based on what he wants, rather than one that listens to his party and voting base? OH.
|
|
Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin
CowPimp:
The president doesn't always have reasons he can tell everyone. Maybe he didn't want certain people to find out, etc. Not every reason is one that can be safely revealed. |
| Well, it basically comes down to which human lives. Attack them and maybe be wrong and kill their citizens, or see what happens and maybe lose some of your own. That's a hard decision to make and it's easy to say your choice would differ when you're not the president and you don't know everything he does. |
| I still don't see how what I said was an analogy. It wasn't meant to be one and I never said we should use that for foreign relations. |
|
Originally Posted by ihateschoolmt
I smoked like 2 grams the other day and worked out, the only reason it affected me was because 2 grams was a little much and made me tired.It's not a good idea to work out high if you are just starting to smoke though.
|
|
Originally Posted by cappo5150
Dude, if you smoked two grams by yourself. You're a champ.
|
|
Originally Posted by cappo5150
Dude, if you smoked two grams by yourself. You're a champ.
|
|
Originally Posted by ihateschoolmt
2 grams isn't that much really. People use 1/8's for brownies all the time. (3.5 grams).
|
|
Originally Posted by mrA
just wondering, would this be a such a bad idea? i have seen it in movies like American buety, i hear u can really concentrate on your mucles. can someone help me out?
|
|
Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin
It's simply ridiculous to think the president knows nothing unsafe for the general public to know. The NSA and CIA are full of secret information dealing with foreign relations. We can't and don't know what they do; the president can and does. It's that simple. I'm not saying he did have secret reasons, but saying that's nonsense is nonsense in itself.
|
|
Originally Posted by CowPimp
Just don't be telling yourself there are hidden reasons for going to war to make yourself feel better about him lying about the ones he gave us. That's all.
|
|
Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin
I can't believe you're naive enough to believe that the president tells the public everything he knows. That's simply laughable.
|
|
Originally Posted by CowPimp
Hardly! I never said that. My point was that we shouldn't just blindly go into war based on fabrications and the potential for further hidden information.
|
|
Originally Posted by Squaggleboggin
Maybe we went into war blindly, but he didn't...
|
|
Originally Posted by aceshigh
ill be manufacturing bud tabs ,,each tab will have a little bud innit
|
|
Originally Posted by CowPimp
Yeah:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/ A couple of people on his cabinet and the vice president are part of an organization that is for taking over the planet, basically. |