Russian Star Peptides TITAN DHT Gel 35% Log/Review 2018 by Jason De'Russo of Area1255

[Area-1255]

LOL , 2 homos on DHT gel came to the forum with sick people and now threaten to beat up people with PFS. Pathetic


I bet you anything Brix will make you bitch slap each other with your dicks until you pass out .

More interesting is the fact that this Thread has turned into a shit-show with Politics, Immigration Debates & hijacking being brought in on multiple levels!
"The plane is spiraling out of control".
LMAO!

 

[MNK99]

Ev1 calm down (if you want).
If MNK is telling others to calm down... Something is srsly wrong. Lol jk. : )
I know you're all chilling. I just had a wake, barely slept, calm. They passed away a while ago. I was irritated about some things or a lot but totally chill there. Helpful also.

-Edit: (raised by narcissists) basically. Some of them mean well. There's good people out there. Told Priest I fasted a long time, etc. he was talking about life being vibrations etc, like that thread about "Life is Music". interesting - kind of vaguely like the movies Coherence (CDN, actually really really cool). And Solaris (Based on Russian Novel).

 

[Area-1255]

Ev1 calm down (if you want).
If MNK is telling others to calm down... Something is srsly wrong. Lol jk. : )
I know you're all chilling. I just had a wake, barely slept, calm. They passed away a while ago. I was irritated about some things or a lot but totally chill there. Helpful also.

 

[hairsuit]

None of Trumps polices could have affected GDP in any meaningful way yet, the economy was growing for most of the 8 years Obama was in power, and the momentum has continued on. Trump slashed taxes disproportionately for the rich, and then increased spending with the Omnibus bill, so debt will be increasing now.

Trump may be soothing relationships with Russia superficially (they are still geo-political rivals policy wise) , but he's creating a lot more tension with China, a country of 1 billion strong, lol.

He's also getting rid of a lot of regulations that were put in place to protect the environment, took the US out of the Paris climate accord. Soon this forum will be irrelevant because we'll all be breathing in toxic shit that will prevent our rebalancing taking place lol

I have to take issue with this. Obama had 8 years to pull the country out of the recession.......growth was anemic at best for a sustained time. It is known historically that a recovery tracks at about 4% GDP.......where we are at now. Reagan did the same 4% in the recovery of the 80's. Obama never brought us above the twos, I believe. I am not a trump fan, but to say that we are riding Obama's wave is wrong. Like it or not, big business has great confidence in Trumps economic possibilities at least, and it shows in the markets, and in consumer confidence. That is why we are experiencing the growth. Not because of Obama.

 

[raven]

I have to take issue with this. Obama had 8 years to pull the country out of the recession.......growth was anemic at best for a sustained time. It is known historically that a recovery tracks at about 4% GDP.......where we are at now. Reagan did the same 4% in the recovery of the 80's. Obama never brought us above the twos, I believe. I am not a trump fan, but to say that we are riding Obama's wave is wrong. Like it or not, big business has great confidence in Trumps economic possibilities at least, and it shows in the markets, and in consumer confidence. That is why we are experiencing the growth. Not because of Obama.

The USA reached higher rates of growth than any other Western nation when it came to the recovery. The economy did reach the boom period under Obama, you can't attribute that to Obama himself nor can you attribute the continuing boom to Trump, but to just read off the figures I think gives a misleading picture.

 

[MNK99]

Reagan

-1st last time I derail here...

Twin Peak Recessions. There's [A LOT] of Economic Theory behind this.
-Contractionary Monetary Policy, Infln vs Unemployment (Philips Curve), Growth Economics [Stable Open Economy Model Vs... a lot of other ones), Deficit Budgets, 1973 oil crisis, and Leading and *Lagging indicators* in Data, that do not reflect true Economic returns. --There's a lot. -- No (most at least) Politician is a "Hero". I think at least. It was before my time/ studied it long ago, some Hong Kong Harvard PhD prof (hard class for me).
-It's "the System" That's Pervasive.
-If you can't beat them, join (or try and join them... or at least get yours)... is what lots try and do.
-Trickle Down Economics had issues seen in the next 10-20yrs -- Twin Peak Recessions (as mentioned).
-Running on the Political Business Cycle For Elections... Tax More and More Social Welfare Vs. Tax Less and Increased Savings in your pocket and or Increased Investment and Entrepreneurial Incentive... more incentive to work obviously and work harder with better financial returns (or micro returns I guess for an individual).
-Run on whatever is "needed or seen as needed" at the time... and inherit things ... and claim victory when turned around -- but always lie, lie, lie and promise the sky, but never ever actually let actions speak for themselves.
-Politicans = All Cut From The Same Cloth.
-I don't even really like Econ... not the best at Math. And it was brutal untreated dual disorder, and pssd at a time, and a ton of other things; I kind of fell into it randomly.
_I liked theory and writing classes better than the Math or Game Theory ones (all math or no math, depending on how it's taught/ or learned).
-Also not saying Theory = Real Life. --Politicians do not understand Economics, just run on Political Election Cylce. Ragean good hair and an actor. Trump = "Reality TV Star".
-Some of this is a Joke. I actually do not like any of the 16-20 candidates several yrs ago, last yr and yr before too much on mind/ last yr to sick to care.
-My solution ---> None / Does not exist (just live... for me, self investment... fuck politics/ ignore it).


-Yeah unless mistaken pretty sure "real life" -- people aren't one of the two extremes shown in American Tv (liberals and conservatives or Democrats and Republicans).
-I'm pretty sure they appeal to the most extreme viewpoints (each). And the candidates are EXTREME examples of it... Hilary and Trump. And it's also true Trump isn't even like a lot of Republicans. And it's true Hilary is an extremist too.
-It's also true that none of this matters, just rise up against the bullshit, make money, and tell everyone to go fuck themselves -- just with bodylanguage alone.

 

[hairsuit]

The USA reached higher rates of growth than any other Western nation when it came to the recovery. The economy did reach the boom period under Obama, you can't attribute that to Obama himself nor can you attribute the continuing boom to Trump, but to just read off the figures I think gives a misleading picture.

Of course we reached higher recovery....... we infused the most money into the economy, which when you take that into account, actually works against the success of the recovery under Bush/Obama. Yes, did trump take advantage of the being down the river a bit as it relates to the time frame of the recovery? Of course, but like him or not, there is an intangible to having him in the White House. For better or for worse.

 

[TubZy]

Shouldn't compare to nations that are worse than you at something, that's historically how the great nations get complacent and stagnate. People criticise the US policy and not Mexico's cause the US is the most powerful country on Earth, the world leader and we hold you guys to a high standard

If a group is suspected of child trafficking the children should be taken somewhere and treated well with access to support, everything should be well documented to ensure speedy reunion with the parents. The real outrage here was the fact that the kids were in many cases put in what were essentially cages, and that there was no plan to reunite them. None of the anti child trafficking institutions recommend wide scale family separation to combat it.

But that still doesn't mean we should just let everyone in freely just because we are the US especially coming from another country that has a rate of crime/drugs/violence. I grew up and live in the third highest taxed state in the US (very close to being number 1) while at the same time now moving toward a sanctuary state. I don't want all my already super high taxed dollars going towards supporting even more illegal immigrants (I actually don't mind illegal immigrants that are here already that work hard and no criminal background). I live in one of the most diverse states/areas in the country, which is awesome, but it's hard to compare because you don't really see things getting out of control like middle class Americans do on a daily basis since you live in another country IMO.

I'm not a fan of family separation and like I said child trafficking was some of the logic that was considered back when it was originally created many years ago. This was already in place prior to Trump so to blame Trump doesn't make sense especially after signing an EO of actually stopping separation. Trump Signs Order To End Family Separations

So I don't get why people still keeping bringing up the argument of saying Trump is "mean" for separating families when he didn't start it and yet was even the one to actually do something about it and end it.

 

[Niles]

But that still doesn't mean we should just let everyone in freely just because we are the US especially coming from another country that has a rate of crime/drugs/violence. I grew up and live in the third highest taxed state in the US (very close to being number 1) while at the same time now moving toward a sanctuary state. I don't want all my already super high taxed dollars going towards supporting even more illegal immigrants (I actually don't mind illegal immigrants that are here already that work hard and no criminal background). I live in one of the most diverse states/areas in the country, which is awesome, but it's hard to compare because you don't really see things getting out of control like middle class Americans do on a daily basis since you live in another country IMO.

I'm not a fan of family separation and like I said child trafficking was some of the logic that was considered back when it was originally created many years ago. This was already in place prior to Trump so to blame Trump doesn't make sense especially after signing an EO of actually stopping separation. Trump Signs Order To End Family Separations

So I don't get why people still keeping bringing up the argument of saying Trump is "mean" for separating families when he didn't start it and yet was even the one to actually do something about it and end it.

I think the idea that liberals want to "just let everyone in freely" is a total straw man, because nobody is suggesting we do that. Liberals and conservatives both want to reduce the numbers of illegal immigrants coming in, but they each have a different approach - especially when it comes to children (think "dreamers", family separation, etc).

You're right that under Bush and Obama illegal immigrant children would sometimes be separated from their parents when there was suspicion of child trafficking, but come on, you've got to understand why there was such a widespread reaction of disgust to what Trump did. He had every child that crossed the border with their parents separated from them, zero tolerance, even for children with disabilities. He doesn't deserve a pat on the back for ending the practice, he made it 100 times worse beforehand and would have kept on with it if it weren't for the intense domestic and international outcry. If you really are against separation of illegal immigrant families, then you must see that Trump did this as a heartless deterrent, just to tell the world, "if your family comes here illegally, we WILL take your children from you."

 

[TubZy]

I think the idea that liberals want to "just let everyone in freely" is a total straw man, because nobody is suggesting we do that. Liberals and conservatives both want to reduce the numbers of illegal immigrants coming in, but they each have a different approach - especially when it comes to children (think "dreamers", family separation, etc).

You're right that under Bush and Obama illegal immigrant children would sometimes be separated from their parents when there was suspicion of child trafficking, but come on, you've got to understand why there was such a widespread reaction of disgust to what Trump did. He had every child that crossed the border with their parents separated from them, zero tolerance, even for children with disabilities. He doesn't deserve a pat on the back for ending the practice, he made it 100 times worse beforehand and would have kept on with it if it weren't for the intense domestic and international outcry. If you really are against separation of illegal immigrant families, then you must see that Trump did this as a heartless deterrent, just to tell the world, "if your family comes here illegally, we WILL take your children from you."

Modern day liberals are no way aligned with conservatives on immigration at all. You see massive protests and democrat senators calling to abolish ICE on top of that you have Nancy Pelosi defending MS-13. Liberals are even as going as far as doxing ICE officials personal info and home addresses, which is insane.

I think you are thinking of the older style democrats like during the Bill Clinton era where he basically used the same rhetoric as Trump on immigration as you can see in the video below from 1995. Back then they were more aligned with conservatives I would say, but liberals these days only want illegal immigrants for their votes, that is it.

No, he did not have every child separated from coming across the border, there are multiple sources saying this. It was a short span of six weeks when this entire issue occurred and then the EO was signed and it's over for good. There are no known numbers for Obama's administration either regarding the amount of families separated so I don't get how you can so confidently can compare the two especially when Obama was doing it over the course of eight years.

Here is a source: Family separation was new, but Trump’s new border policy is an Obama throwback

"From May 7 to June 20, separating a family who had entered between ports of entry was the standard practice of the Trump administration. It was the default.

Trump administration officials denied family separation was a “policy” for legalistic reasons, but they affirmed that “zero tolerance” prosecutions were a policy. Until Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday allowing families to be kept together in immigration detention while parents were prosecuted, the administration maintained that separating families was an inevitable outcome of prosecuting parents.

Not every family was separated. But dozens of families a day were. At least 2,300 families were separated over those six or so weeks."

 

[Stud]

LOL , 2 homos on DHT gel came to the forum with sick people and now threaten to beat up people with PFS. Pathetic


I bet you anything Brix will make you bitch slap each other with your dicks until you pass out .

lol you took it out of context, I didn't know he had PFS though. However since he started it would not change anything to the situation. I have no time to beat anyone up. just realisticly speaking If we were to fight I would obviously win. doesn't take a genious to know that. I do wish this guy all te best in his recovery and hopefully when his cured he'll be a bit nicer to the people here as I did nothing wrong and he was starting to cause trouble. you know very well I was not in the wrong here. anyway studdy loves you all very dearly no worries.

 

[raven]

Modern day liberals are no way aligned with conservatives on immigration at all. You see massive protests and democrat senators calling to abolish ICE on top of that you have Nancy Pelosi defending MS-13. Liberals are even as going as far as doxing ICE officials personal info and home addresses, which is insane.

I think you are thinking of the older style democrats like during the Bill Clinton era where he basically used the same rhetoric as Trump on immigration as you can see in the video below from 1995. Back then they were more aligned with conservatives I would say, but liberals these days only want illegal immigrants for their votes, that is it.

No, he did not have every child separated from coming across the border, there are multiple sources saying this. It was a short span of six weeks when this entire issue occurred and then the EO was signed and it's over for good. There are no known numbers for Obama's administration either regarding the amount of families separated so I don't get how you can so confidently can compare the two especially when Obama was doing it over the course of eight years.

Here is a source: Family separation was new, but Trump’s new border policy is an Obama throwback

"From May 7 to June 20, separating a family who had entered between ports of entry was the standard practice of the Trump administration. It was the default.

Trump administration officials denied family separation was a “policy” for legalistic reasons, but they affirmed that “zero tolerance” prosecutions were a policy. Until Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday allowing families to be kept together in immigration detention while parents were prosecuted, the administration maintained that separating families was an inevitable outcome of prosecuting parents.

Not every family was separated. But dozens of families a day were. At least 2,300 families were separated over those six or so weeks."

Remember that historically it was always the conservatives that were in favour of mass immigration and open borders. That 4% growth @hairsuit was talking about under Reagan? It was caused by the largest amnesty of illegal immigration in any nation ever. This gave business access to cheap labour lowering costs of production and boosting output.

There is more open borders talk from some on the left due to reaction against trumps anti immigration talk, which I think we all don't like. But when the time comes, the people who genuinely believe in open borders and free markets are the far right in an economic sense, And it will get voted through only with their backing.

This is backed up by the fact that Obama cracked down harder on illegal immigration than Bush

Skip the Pelosis and the Clintons and the Trumps who just spew rubbish to rile up the base

 

[TubZy]

Remember that historically it was always the conservatives that were in favour of mass immigration and open borders. That 4% growth @hairsuit was talking about under Reagan? It was caused by the largest amnesty of illegal immigration in any nation ever. This gave business access to cheap labour lowering costs of production and boosting output.

There is more open borders talk from some on the left due to reaction against trumps anti immigration talk, which I think we all don't like. But when the time comes, the people who genuinely believe in open borders and free markets are the far right in an economic sense, And it will get voted through only with their backing.

This is backed up by the fact that Obama cracked down harder on illegal immigration than Bush

Skip the Pelosis and the Clintons and the Trumps who just spew rubbish to rile up the base

We are talking about mass illegal immigration, not legal immigration. Conservatives never favored mass illegal immigration that I'm aware of mainly because it puts a burden on the tax payer. I have no problems with legal immigration at all. I'm talking about the Bill Clinton era and prior since the "real" democrats were usually in favor for the unions and the american worker, but now (today) they lean more towards supporting illegal immigrants instead (if you watch the Bill Clinton video I posted earlier, he says "illegal immigrants" not "legal" immigrants).

I'm not a fan of Bush, but the data shows that there were more illegal immigrants coming to the USA during Obama's term (both criminals and non-criminals) which would translate into more deportations so it's irrelevant. So not sure what you mean by fact in terms of cracking down since the data shows that during Obama's term there was a significantly higher total number of illegal immigrants crossing the border compared to Bush, check out the graph below.

U.S. immigrant deportations down in 2014, but still near record high

I mean it's not just rhetoric dude to stir up the base, look at the statistics on San Francisco, which you know Pelosi basically represents correct? My new governor is already working towards making my state a sanctuary state, so it not just rhetoric only and to just "skip" the politicians. Again, you don't live in this country so you don't really see or hear of these type things that happen on daily basis.

 

[raven]

We are talking about mass illegal immigration, not legal immigration. Conservatives never favored mass illegal immigration that I'm aware of mainly because it puts a burden on the tax payer. I have no problems with legal immigration at all. I'm talking about the Bill Clinton era and prior since the "real" democrats were usually in favor for the unions and the american worker, but now (today) they lean more towards supporting illegal immigrants instead (if you watch the Bill Clinton video I posted earlier, he says "illegal immigrants" not "legal" immigrants).

I'm not a fan of Bush, but the data shows that there were more illegal immigrants coming to the USA during Obama's term (both criminals and non-criminals) which would translate into more deportations so it's irrelevant. So not sure what you mean by fact in terms of cracking down since the data shows that during Obama's term there was a significantly higher total number of illegal immigrants crossing the border compared to Bush, check out the graph below.

U.S. immigrant deportations down in 2014, but still near record high

I mean it's not just rhetoric dude to stir up the base, look at the statistics on San Francisco, which you know Pelosi basically represents correct? My new governor is already working towards making my state a sanctuary state, so it not just rhetoric only and to just "skip" the politicians. Again, you don't live in this country so you don't really see or hear of these type things that happen on daily basis.

Reagan granted the largest amnesty of ILLEGAL immigrants in history. In the Bush era there was bipartisan support for another amnesty. All illegal immigrants in the country who entered before that year with no criminal record were actually granted citizenship. That's a far cry from this sanctuary state business. Social conservatives may be against mass illegal immigration, but all right wing free market capitalists in the Republican party will be pro it.

California was already a bloody sanctuary state. If you were an illegal immigrant in California it'd be relatively easy to get a job paying very little, and there was slim chance you'd be deported. This was probably more unpopular with Californians at the time than it is now, but was allowed by corporate Democrats because it allowed small business in California to be more productive. I think securing the border and then providing a pathway for citizenship for those who remain is probably the way to go now.

Now of course it's trendier to talk about all this sanctuary state business, but I don't think there's much difference in what's going on now, and what was going on before.

You are right that I don't live there so I don't understand the debate on the ground that much, but I do understand the economics of it, and I don't believe that the debate on the ground matters that much to politicians who are getting paid massive bucks from big business, both Democrat and Republican. It's mostly theatre at that level of discussion.

 

[TubZy]

Reagan granted the largest amnesty of ILLEGAL immigrants in history. In the Bush era there was bipartisan support for another amnesty. All illegal immigrants in the country who entered before that year with no criminal record were actually granted citizenship. That's a far cry from this sanctuary state business. Social conservatives may be against mass illegal immigration, but all right wing free market capitalists in the Republican party will be pro it.

California was already a bloody sanctuary state. If you were an illegal immigrant in California it'd be relatively easy to get a job paying very little, and there was slim chance you'd be deported. This was probably more unpopular with Californians at the time than it is now, but was allowed by corporate Democrats because it allowed small business in California to be more productive. I think securing the border and then providing a pathway for citizenship for those who remain is probably the way to go now.

Now of course it's trendier to talk about all this sanctuary state business, but I don't think there's much difference in what's going on now, and what was going on before.

You are right that I don't live there so I don't understand the debate on the ground that much, but I do understand the economics of it, and I don't believe that the debate on the ground matters that much to politicians who are getting paid massive bucks from big business, both Democrat and Republican. It's mostly theatre at that level of discussion.

You are taking Reagan out of context though. He did grant amnesty but it was in exchange for policies calling for a tighter border going forward not just as a simple hand out. If you wanted to get really technical as well many of Reagan's close admins would say he regrets it since many of the border policies never followed through with congress. Same thing that Trump tried to today by granting amnesty to the dreamers in exchange for border wall funding, which to me I think is fair even though some have a problem with it, but the dems won't budge.

I'm not even sure why were are talking about amnesty anyways when I already stated earlier that I don't have a problem with illegals that are here already if they have no criminal background, it is enforcing a stronger border and laws that I'm talking about. You simply stated Obama was tougher on Bush on "cracking" down on illegal immigration with no context hence why I assume you were pointing towards deportations so I referenced that.

You should like Trump then since he doesn't have any donors if you acknowledge that he isn't being paid off like most politicians essentially

 

[raven]

You are taking Reagan out of context though. He did grant amnesty but it was in exchange for policies calling for a tighter border going forward not just as a simple hand out. If you wanted to get really technical as well many of Reagan's close admins would say he regrets it since many of the border policies never followed through with congress. Same thing that Trump tried to today by granting amnesty to the dreamers in exchange for border wall funding, which to me I think is fair even though some have a problem with it, but the dems won't budge.

I'm not even sure why were are talking about amnesty anyways when I already stated earlier that I don't have a problem with illegals that are here already if they have no criminal background, it is enforcing a stronger border and laws that I'm talking about. You simply stated Obama was tougher on Bush on "cracking" down on illegal immigration with no context hence why I assume you were pointing towards deportations so I referenced that.

You should like Trump then since he doesn't have any donors if you acknowledge that he isn't being paid off like most politicians essentially

It was to provide cheap labour for business. It wasn't in exchange for anything, Reagan believed in illegal amnesty for business and spoke out about it multiple times.

I do like the fact that Trump doesnt have donors, Ive already said he's better than your average Republican in some ways. He's checked far right economic policy in some ways e.g. exiting TPP. On balance he's far more harmful to the country than beneficial though.

 

[Area-1255]

lol you took it out of context, I didn't know he had PFS though. However since he started it would not change anything to the situation. I have no time to beat anyone up. just realisticly speaking If we were to fight I would obviously win. doesn't take a genious to know that. I do wish this guy all te best in his recovery and hopefully when his cured he'll be a bit nicer to the people here as I did nothing wrong and he was starting to cause trouble. you know very well I was not in the wrong here. anyway studdy loves you all very dearly no worries.

One thing @Helen doesn't understand, is even though 90% of "big-talkers" are Pussies...some 'follow through on their Word. Some are Big-Talkers because they ARE Tough.
Sometimes Grandiosity - is because of a Winning-Streak. After all, Dopamine rises as well as Testosterone in response to a "WIN". Therefore, any 'winning' is often a Reinforcement of Such Grandiosity...so in layman's terms - someone who is tough & exerts themselves in a COCKY manner, might also be having an astoundingly Good-Day, a winning streak, or have adjusted their Routine for the Better...which is something that - unless analyzed DEEPLY -- is actually (unfortunately) impossible to tell if that is the Case....if you DON'T ask the Person, you won't know, Period.
@Stud @MNK99 @Boris @Brute @supernature

 

[Helen]

One thing @Helen doesn't understand, is even though 90% of "big-talkers" are Pussies...some 'follow through on their Word. Some are Big-Talkers because they ARE Tough.
Sometimes Grandiosity - is because of a Winning-Streak. After all, Dopamine rises as well as Testosterone in response to a "WIN". Therefore, any 'winning' is often a Reinforcement of Such Grandiosity...so in layman's terms - someone who is tough & exerts themselves in a COCKY manner, might also be having an astoundingly Good-Day, a winning streak, or have adjusted their Routine for the Better...which is something that - unless analyzed DEEPLY -- is actually (unfortunately) impossible to tell if that is the Case....if you DON'T ask the Person, you won't know, Period.
@Stud @MNK99 @Boris @Brute @supernature

your brain does no understand that I understand this. LOL

Unfortunately brain only gets diminished on DHT gel. Potassium goes down, B2 is used up for progesterone, glut is down. Neurons oxidation. Boom , Iq from 215 to 85))

And then some obvious things need to be mentioned as a super smart idea. Same shit happens to pot heads. they get high and think they are genius LOL

 

[Area-1255]

your brain does no understand that I understand this. LOL

Unfortunately brain only gets diminished on DHT gel. Potassium goes down, B2 is used up for progesterone, glut is down. Neurons oxidation. Boom , Iq from 215 to 85))

And then some obvious things need to be mentioned as a super smart idea. Same shit happens to pot heads. they get high and think they are genius LOL

Haha, I 'know I was just 'fucking with you Man! I gotta' be careful though, cus' Shulaya might be getting out of Jail soon (if he isn't already)...don't want you to hit me off for pissing you off too much LOL! @Helen

 

[Helen]

Haha, I 'know I was just 'fucking with you Man! I gotta' be careful though, cus' Shulaya might be getting out of Jail soon (if he isn't already)...don't want you to hit me off for pissing you off too much LOL! @Helen

Haha, I dont need Shulaya to catch your ass in Niagara falls and play some 'CHESS' with ya.