No, that's not why we have a court system. The courts do not make laws; they interpret law made by the legislature, which has the responsibility to pass laws, both large and small. Besides; you're the one insisting they get more involved, not me.
Yes...something I learned back in middle school. Thanks for refreshing my memory.
I'm insisting that Congress get more involved. Why stop at sports? That link above has nothing to do with my arguement. Bribery is one thing, drugs is another.
I didn't say that was your argument. I included the word "if" deliberately.
Wow. This is what you said.
If you want to argue that they're paying too much attention to it, that's fine, but either way your original basis for argument (that there are more important things for Congress to be doing, so they shouldn't be doing anything else) is silly.
You implied mutual exclusivity. You complained that they were doing one thing and suggested they did another.
And yes, of course I know how many members are in Congress. Do you, without looking it up? Do you know the Constitutional Order of Succession? How about the number of states needed to ratify a Constitutional Amendment? None of this is relevant to the argument at hand, but if you want to get into some sort of pissing contest, you can start by answering those, sans Google. Personally I'd rather you ignored them and simply kept the juvenile sarcasm to yourself from now on.
I know congress is made up of the sensators and the reps. The numbers well over 500. Do I know the exact one? Nope. Consitutional Order of Succesion? Nope. Ratifying a Constitutional AMendement? Nope.
You are right. None of those are releated to the conversation at hand...I have no idea what purpose they might use. Honestly, at the moment, they really don't mean much to me. As for keeping the juvenile sarcasm to myself, nope.
They'd had the power to take it farther all along. But they haven't. And by no reasonable standard is it "amazing" how far they've taken it. All they've done is held hearings. No bill has been passed, or even put before the legislature, for that matter. They've done nothing more than bring it up, at this point.
And again, which is it? Are they wasting their time on something they shouldn't be bothering with, or are they not going far enough? You seem to be arguing both sides. How can you say they're not really doing anything, but also say it's "amazing" how far they've taken it?
There are a majority of drugs that are ILLEGAL in the United States. A widespan of people all ready know about that. Now, they've had YEARS to rid of this problem. How long have drugs+media been together? A very long effin time. Exactly what bill must be passed for record companies to realize that drugs are illegal, once again?
Which one is it? It's the latter one of those two. Usually what Congress deals with is usually important. It's how they deal with it. When you've had years to strike down on all of this, you didn't. When Bush says rolemodels, they get off their chairs and start to get to work. Do I need a whip instead?
Don't tell me to shut up again; I'll say what I like, when I like, especially on my own forum. And you'll either show the people you argue with here a base level of courtesy, or you'll find another place to argue
.
Okay, it's your forum. Bravo. I told you to shut up on that account, on that arguement basically for the reason being you really don't give a damn when you should.
That said, I think it's unlikely that you'd have heard the word "erection" on a network ad (local baseball games are usually broadcast on local cable stations), but even if you did, it doesn't strike me as a particularly vulgar word, especially when used in a medical context.
Medical context? Wow. Please, do not go any farther with this one. Thanks.
I don't have to MAKE you look angry; you do it yourself by swearing, telling people to "shut up" when they disagree with you, and express outraged and disagreement on almost everything you comment on. Whether or not you're angry, though, is beside the point. You can be angry if you want; just don't waste my time drifting off towards a dozen side-arguments that have almost nothing to do with the first one.
I find nothing truthfully wrong with swearing, especially when it's pointed at an opponent. It's fun to tell people to shut up, don't you? I know you can ban people. I can just tell people to shut up. Weeee.
Outrage and disagreement? Once again, I said I have my ways of going at things and you have your own. I'm not sitting here with a stress ball in one hand and typing away.
If you don't want me to waste your time, you don't have to look at my posts at all. If they turn you off, you can look the other way. I'm sure there are many things you can look at. I do post once in a blue moon now-a-days.
No one said anything about the "war on terrorism," and your repeated attempts to drag other, unrelated issues into the argument is a waste of time. If you want to start a seperate argument on a seperate topic, go right ahead. Otherwise, stick to the point.
I'd say it makes things juicier. There are no rules to an arguement, unless I missed some thread in the past. So ignore it if it's really that annoying.
I think it's a pretty safe bet that the DEA knows that drugs are coming from Mexico, and I doubt that it simply hasn't occurred to them to stop it. Clearly, the situation's a little bit more complicated than that. If it were simple enough that a 17 year old pointificating in Illinois could figure it out in his spare time, I think we'd have done it already.
Oh wow. Yoda clicked a link and got some background information. Congratulations. So if the DEA is like 10 steps ahead of me and my intelligence resources, why haven't they gone farther? Once again, the arguement is about going farther and trying to completely stop it.
You can't have it both ways; a threat done with the help of media is still a threat. You can't complain that Congress used media to exert enormous pressure onto MLB, yet simultaneously complain that Congress didn't really do anything. Well, I shouldn't say you CAN'T, because you ARE, but it doesn't make sense.
It makes perfect sense. When Congress should have been pressuring the MLB, it was the media naming all the big stars that were being pointed at. Do we really need FOX News and the Chicago Suntimes to help in the effort to rid of steroids in baseball? No. They're here to report news. Congress needs to grab them by the throat and tell them what's right.
Farther how? You've already complained about the FCC's handling of the content on TV. So there's your answer: they won't go farther in many instances because people will complain about that, too -- and apparently you're one of them. They have to walk a line between trying to protect people from obscenity and trying to give people the freedom to do and say what they want. As you've probably noticed, not everyone agrees as to what is and is not reasonable for network television, radio, etc.
Yes Yoda...or can I can call you Chris? Whatever. The people complaining? I am going ot be honest with you. People really won't miss those viagra commercials and enzyte commercials. If you have a problem, visist your doctor. He/she''ll be glad to help. That's what they do. They have many pamphlets lying around that you can poke around in. The last thing I need is Bob making drawings in the air with his hands about wood while one of my younger relatives watches.
Freedom sometimes has to be harnessed...I seriously hope you respect that and believe in that as well. These people want freedom? You can do it after 11 P.M.....seriously. I don't want that garbage, and what you seem to be implying as pure freedom, on TV before that. That's what I believe. So be it.
In other words, they haven't gone farther because not everyone agrees with you.
Yes...well I figured that when I didn't get enough votes to run for President.
Reply to Topic
