Jump to content

Publicity Hog McCain Strikes Again


Recommended Posts

>>>I'm glad he's speaking out to say 'Hey, drugs are bad.' Not many people who do that these days.<<<

 

Are you glad when politicians speak out and tell kids, "Hey, abstain from sex?"

Tell the truth, please.  :)

150400[/snapback]

 

Not sure what this has to do with an argument about steroids/performance-enhancing drugs in sports or even drugs in general. Consensual sex, even among kids of certain age ranges depending on your state, is not illegal.

 

Not trying to evade the question but you might be surprised. Don't need a tangent here. This has been talked about at length in the AO thread. Look there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what this has to do with an argument about steroids/performance-enhancing drugs in sports or even drugs in general. Consensual sex, even among kids of certain age ranges depending on your state, is not illegal.

 

Not trying to evade the question but you might be surprised. Don't need a tangent here. This has been talked about at length in the AO thread. Look there.

150797[/snapback]

 

Nice copout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice copout.

150966[/snapback]

 

Actually it's not. I've posted my thoughts to your self-same question in that thread. No need to write it over again. Look it up.

 

I don't have the time right now to link it.

 

Still, what kind of point are you trying to make? What does that have to do with sports players taking illegal drugs and speaking otu against it? Apples and oranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were a matter of criminalizing steroids (or criminalizing them more), I'd agree with you. 

 

But everything I've heard from McCain on the subject sounds like he wants to criminalize baseball players on steroids.  That, as I said, is no more than raising baseball's internal rules and regulations to the level of federal law.  And THAT is an act of lunacy.  What's next, a constitutional amendment forcing the National League to adopt the designated hitter rule?

149154[/snapback]

Take away their anti-trust exemption and your argument holds some water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take away their anti-trust exemption and your argument holds some water.

151600[/snapback]

 

As well as their taxpayer-funded stadiums (or is that stadia?). Then again, this wrinkle extends to pretty much all professional sports.

 

Well, one might argue, those aren't funded by the federal gov't.... Specifically no, but for every dollar a city spends funding a stadium for a private business, that's one dollar less that goes to fire departments, police, schools, etc. They then beg to the federal govt that they need funding for these critical areas that, surprise, surprise, don't have enough money, and how can Uncle Sam refuse firefighters in this day and age?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As well as their taxpayer-funded stadiums (or is that stadia?). Then again, this wrinkle extends to pretty much all professional sports.

 

Well, one might argue, those aren't funded by the federal gov't.... Specifically no, but for every dollar a city spends funding a stadium for a private business, that's one dollar less that goes to fire departments, police, schools, etc. They then beg to the federal govt that they need funding for these critical areas that, surprise, surprise, don't have enough money, and how can Uncle Sam refuse firefighters in this day and age?

153078[/snapback]

The Federal Government shouldn't be funding local services, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...