Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not really, no. Same logic applies.If crack dealers are murderers because they sell crack that kills people than so are gun store owners.It is hard to fathom that alcohol kills more people every year when all you hear in the news is people dying by a rate of around 150 a day from overdoses on heroin.
So no matter how much higher that rate increases with legalized heroin, you are OK with it?
Heroin and alcohol are not comparable.
in terms of death tolls they are.
I thought murder was illegal, or do you think it should be legal?
When discussing these substances you could argue that you are allowing people to be murdered all across the country, but I reckon that so long as they have their consent on some level, even though they may not really understand what they are doing, it is OK.
Gun stores sell guns LEGALLY with background checks and a Federal Form 4473 documenting the sale. Criminals mostly get guns ILLEGALLY that they use to commit crimes that are ALREADY illegal also. Crack dealers sell drugs ILLEGALLY.
Again, you couldn't be MORE WRONG.
You are not still understanding.If crack dealers are murderers because they sell crack that kills people than so are gun store owners.in terms of death tolls they are.
I thought murder was illegal, or do you think it should be legal?
When discussing these substances you could argue that you are allowing people to be murdered all across the country, but I reckon that so long as they have their consent on some level, even though they may not really understand what they are doing, it is OK.
Gun stores sell guns LEGALLY with background checks and a Federal Form 4473 documenting the sale. Criminals mostly get guns ILLEGALLY that they use to commit crimes that are ALREADY illegal also. Crack dealers sell drugs ILLEGALLY.
Again, you couldn't be MORE WRONG.
You are not understanding what I'm saying.
IF you wage war against guns, like Singapore does illicit drugs, you can substantially reduce it's use.
I recognize that most guns used illegally are obtained illegally, but waging war across the board would reduce their numbers.
A war on guns is being waged. It hasn't worked. It can not work in the U.S. due to the large population, the sheer number of guns and the Second Amendment which is currently being circumvented illegally by government yet they are still failing to stop violent crime where PEOPLE use a gun.
IF you wage a war on guns like Singapore wages war on drugs then you could substantively reduce the number of gun deaths.
Then people would do like they do in Europe, turn to knives, bombs, cars, etc.
And then if things got bad enough, they would seek to take those from you as well.
Eventually you would be like an inmate in jail. You will not be allowed any "dangerous" objects and probably be subjected to repeated rape because you have no means to defend yourself.
“It started in the Civil War with the levy on beer and whiskey to help fund the war, and it never really went away.
We can ignore the Whiskey Rebellion. https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/whiskey-rebellion
The Women's Christian Temperance Movement was behind prohibition. They were just one of the reform movements that had picked up steam by the time prohibition was passed. Even Hollywood which was in New York at the time moved to California and started it's own self censorship to keep the government from censoring them. I don't think it was a plot. I think it was heavily divided. You could drink and you could buy it with a prescription from what would later become Walgreens.
I disagree. The Progressives had been looking to create a Federal income tax for some time.
On May 21, 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a direct tax on personal income was unconstitutional as a result of the case of Pollock v. Farmers‘ Loan and Trust Company. The lawsuit had been precipitated by the 1894 Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision stated that a “direct tax” on the “income of real and of personal property” was “unconstitutional and void.”
So since a federal income tax was unconstitutional, they simply had to ad it to the Constitution.
You would have to ignore a large part of society that had been shutting down vice. What I am saying is that you have multiple groups of people that you can label as progressives and prohibition was not something that people agreed on. At all. If you think the WCTM was hiding in some back room cackling about being able to push an income tax then I'm going to need some verified proof of that.
What I'm referring to are the political powers at that time.
They simply mold and twist other people to do their bidding.
In short, manipulate them, which is what Prohibition was all about.
“It started in the Civil War with the levy on beer and whiskey to help fund the war, and it never really went away.
We can ignore the Whiskey Rebellion. https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/whiskey-rebellion
The Women's Christian Temperance Movement was behind prohibition. They were just one of the reform movements that had picked up steam by the time prohibition was passed. Even Hollywood which was in New York at the time moved to California and started it's own self censorship to keep the government from censoring them. I don't think it was a plot. I think it was heavily divided. You could drink and you could buy it with a prescription from what would later become Walgreens.
I disagree. The Progressives had been looking to create a Federal income tax for some time.
On May 21, 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a direct tax on personal income was unconstitutional as a result of the case of Pollock v. Farmers‘ Loan and Trust Company. The lawsuit had been precipitated by the 1894 Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision stated that a “direct tax” on the “income of real and of personal property” was “unconstitutional and void.”
So since a federal income tax was unconstitutional, they simply had to ad it to the Constitution.
You would have to ignore a large part of society that had been shutting down vice. What I am saying is that you have multiple groups of people that you can label as progressives and prohibition was not something that people agreed on. At all. If you think the WCTM was hiding in some back room cackling about being able to push an income tax then I'm going to need some verified proof of that.
What I'm referring to are the political powers at that time.
They simply mold and twist other people to do their bidding.
In short, manipulate them, which is what Prohibition was all about.
Letter against Prohibition | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
Do I think there are people that would take advantage of a situation? Yep. We have groups today that are hijacked for political purposes. We also have a plethora of groups that have ulterior motives that will jump on the bandwagon supporting measures. Do I think it was a plot? No. Do I think it became evident the money came from somewhere? Yep. I just don't see a Mr. Burns back there. Perhaps I am judging the 65th Congress by today's standards but I do not see these folks as being intelligent enough to pull that off.
You are not still understanding.If crack dealers are murderers because they sell crack that kills people than so are gun store owners.
Gun stores sell guns LEGALLY with background checks and a Federal Form 4473 documenting the sale. Criminals mostly get guns ILLEGALLY that they use to commit crimes that are ALREADY illegal also. Crack dealers sell drugs ILLEGALLY.
Again, you couldn't be MORE WRONG.
You are not understanding what I'm saying.
IF you wage war against guns, like Singapore does illicit drugs, you can substantially reduce it's use.
I recognize that most guns used illegally are obtained illegally, but waging war across the board would reduce their numbers.
A war on guns is being waged. It hasn't worked. It can not work in the U.S. due to the large population, the sheer number of guns and the Second Amendment which is currently being circumvented illegally by government yet they are still failing to stop violent crime where PEOPLE use a gun.
IF you wage a war on guns like Singapore wages war on drugs then you could substantively reduce the number of gun deaths.
Then people would do like they do in Europe, turn to knives, bombs, cars, etc.
And then if things got bad enough, they would seek to take those from you as well.
Eventually you would be like an inmate in jail. You will not be allowed any "dangerous" objects and probably be subjected to repeated rape because you have no means to defend yourself.
Your premise is flawed. You can't wage a war on guns like Singapore can as legal U.S. gun owners would not tolerate that. There would be widespread non compliance, civil and UNCIVIL disobedience. We just don't go along with illegal, and unconstitutional laws and actions.
We can ignore the Whiskey Rebellion. https://www.history.com/topics/early-us/whiskey-rebellion
The Women's Christian Temperance Movement was behind prohibition. They were just one of the reform movements that had picked up steam by the time prohibition was passed. Even Hollywood which was in New York at the time moved to California and started it's own self censorship to keep the government from censoring them. I don't think it was a plot. I think it was heavily divided. You could drink and you could buy it with a prescription from what would later become Walgreens.
I disagree. The Progressives had been looking to create a Federal income tax for some time.
On May 21, 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a direct tax on personal income was unconstitutional as a result of the case of Pollock v. Farmers‘ Loan and Trust Company. The lawsuit had been precipitated by the 1894 Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision stated that a “direct tax” on the “income of real and of personal property” was “unconstitutional and void.”
So since a federal income tax was unconstitutional, they simply had to ad it to the Constitution.
You would have to ignore a large part of society that had been shutting down vice. What I am saying is that you have multiple groups of people that you can label as progressives and prohibition was not something that people agreed on. At all. If you think the WCTM was hiding in some back room cackling about being able to push an income tax then I'm going to need some verified proof of that.
What I'm referring to are the political powers at that time.
They simply mold and twist other people to do their bidding.
In short, manipulate them, which is what Prohibition was all about.
Letter against Prohibition | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
Do I think there are people that would take advantage of a situation? Yep. We have groups today that are hijacked for political purposes. We also have a plethora of groups that have ulterior motives that will jump on the bandwagon supporting measures. Do I think it was a plot? No. Do I think it became evident the money came from somewhere? Yep. I just don't see a Mr. Burns back there. Perhaps I am judging the 65th Congress by today's standards but I do not see these folks as being intelligent enough to pull that off.
Politics is nothing but one large cabal. If we knew the truth, they would never get elected.
nope, same logic.Not really, no. Same logic applies.If crack dealers are murderers because they sell crack that kills people than so are gun store owners.Heroin and alcohol are not comparable.
in terms of death tolls they are.
I thought murder was illegal, or do you think it should be legal?
When discussing these substances you could argue that you are allowing people to be murdered all across the country, but I reckon that so long as they have their consent on some level, even though they may not really understand what they are doing, it is OK.
Gun stores sell guns LEGALLY with background checks and a Federal Form 4473 documenting the sale. Criminals mostly get guns ILLEGALLY that they use to commit crimes that are ALREADY illegal also. Crack dealers sell drugs ILLEGALLY.
Again, you couldn't be MORE WRONG.
NO. One is purchased legally and responsibly and mostly used legally and responsibly. The other is bought illegally and irresponsibly and certainly USED illegally and irresponsibly. So, no there is no logic in your logic which is laughable as usual
I disagree. The Progressives had been looking to create a Federal income tax for some time.
On May 21, 1895, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a direct tax on personal income was unconstitutional as a result of the case of Pollock v. Farmers‘ Loan and Trust Company. The lawsuit had been precipitated by the 1894 Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision stated that a “direct tax” on the “income of real and of personal property” was “unconstitutional and void.”
So since a federal income tax was unconstitutional, they simply had to ad it to the Constitution.
You would have to ignore a large part of society that had been shutting down vice. What I am saying is that you have multiple groups of people that you can label as progressives and prohibition was not something that people agreed on. At all. If you think the WCTM was hiding in some back room cackling about being able to push an income tax then I'm going to need some verified proof of that.
What I'm referring to are the political powers at that time.
They simply mold and twist other people to do their bidding.
In short, manipulate them, which is what Prohibition was all about.
Letter against Prohibition | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
Do I think there are people that would take advantage of a situation? Yep. We have groups today that are hijacked for political purposes. We also have a plethora of groups that have ulterior motives that will jump on the bandwagon supporting measures. Do I think it was a plot? No. Do I think it became evident the money came from somewhere? Yep. I just don't see a Mr. Burns back there. Perhaps I am judging the 65th Congress by today's standards but I do not see these folks as being intelligent enough to pull that off.
Politics is nothing but one large cabal. If we knew the truth, they would never get elected.
But, we do know the truth and that's why people don't often show up. But, agree in sentiment.
You would have to ignore a large part of society that had been shutting down vice. What I am saying is that you have multiple groups of people that you can label as progressives and prohibition was not something that people agreed on. At all. If you think the WCTM was hiding in some back room cackling about being able to push an income tax then I'm going to need some verified proof of that.
What I'm referring to are the political powers at that time.
They simply mold and twist other people to do their bidding.
In short, manipulate them, which is what Prohibition was all about.
Letter against Prohibition | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
Do I think there are people that would take advantage of a situation? Yep. We have groups today that are hijacked for political purposes. We also have a plethora of groups that have ulterior motives that will jump on the bandwagon supporting measures. Do I think it was a plot? No. Do I think it became evident the money came from somewhere? Yep. I just don't see a Mr. Burns back there. Perhaps I am judging the 65th Congress by today's standards but I do not see these folks as being intelligent enough to pull that off.
Politics is nothing but one large cabal. If we knew the truth, they would never get elected.
But, we do know the truth and that's why people don't often show up. But, agree in sentiment.
People are sheep. If Progressives don't have popular support, then they manufacture it.
Case in point is abortion. Before it was legalized, the majority consensus was that it was immoral. However, decades after being legalized through the courts the public sentiment is that it is OK, although not ideal.
Gay marriage is the same. Before being made law by the courts people were asked to vote on it and voted against it. However, after the courts strong armed the people and made it law, today most support it.
It is just how we are wired. We adjust our morality to perceived authority figures.
Historically we saw this with slavery. Before slavery was made illegal, the majority consensus was that it was OK although not ideal. Today, after being illegal for hundreds of years, the notion seems absurdly evil.
Progressives know this, and use the court system to mold the morality of the populace. For the Progressive, democracy is only as good as the ability to manipulate popular opinion.
You would have to ignore a large part of society that had been shutting down vice. What I am saying is that you have multiple groups of people that you can label as progressives and prohibition was not something that people agreed on. At all. If you think the WCTM was hiding in some back room cackling about being able to push an income tax then I'm going to need some verified proof of that.
What I'm referring to are the political powers at that time.
They simply mold and twist other people to do their bidding.
In short, manipulate them, which is what Prohibition was all about.
Letter against Prohibition | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
Do I think there are people that would take advantage of a situation? Yep. We have groups today that are hijacked for political purposes. We also have a plethora of groups that have ulterior motives that will jump on the bandwagon supporting measures. Do I think it was a plot? No. Do I think it became evident the money came from somewhere? Yep. I just don't see a Mr. Burns back there. Perhaps I am judging the 65th Congress by today's standards but I do not see these folks as being intelligent enough to pull that off.
Politics is nothing but one large cabal. If we knew the truth, they would never get elected.
But, we do know the truth and that's why people don't often show up. But, agree in sentiment.
People are sheep. If Progressives don't have popular support, then they manufacture it.
Case in point is abortion. Before it was legalized, the majority consensus was that it was immoral. However, decades after being legalized through the courts the public sentiment is that it is OK, although not ideal.
Gay marriage is the same. Before being made law by the courts people were asked to vote on it and voted against it. However, after the courts strong armed the people and made it law, today most support it.
It is just how we are wired. We adjust our morality to perceived authority figures.
Historically we saw this with slavery. Before slavery was made illegal, the majority consensus was that it was OK although not ideal. Today, after being illegal for hundreds of years, the notion seems absurdly evil.
Progressives know this, and use the court system to mold the morality of the populace. For the Progressive, democracy is only as good as the ability to manipulate popular opinion.
What I'm referring to are the political powers at that time.
They simply mold and twist other people to do their bidding.
In short, manipulate them, which is what Prohibition was all about.
Letter against Prohibition | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
Do I think there are people that would take advantage of a situation? Yep. We have groups today that are hijacked for political purposes. We also have a plethora of groups that have ulterior motives that will jump on the bandwagon supporting measures. Do I think it was a plot? No. Do I think it became evident the money came from somewhere? Yep. I just don't see a Mr. Burns back there. Perhaps I am judging the 65th Congress by today's standards but I do not see these folks as being intelligent enough to pull that off.
Politics is nothing but one large cabal. If we knew the truth, they would never get elected.
But, we do know the truth and that's why people don't often show up. But, agree in sentiment.
People are sheep. If Progressives don't have popular support, then they manufacture it.
Case in point is abortion. Before it was legalized, the majority consensus was that it was immoral. However, decades after being legalized through the courts the public sentiment is that it is OK, although not ideal.
Gay marriage is the same. Before being made law by the courts people were asked to vote on it and voted against it. However, after the courts strong armed the people and made it law, today most support it.
It is just how we are wired. We adjust our morality to perceived authority figures.
Historically we saw this with slavery. Before slavery was made illegal, the majority consensus was that it was OK although not ideal. Today, after being illegal for hundreds of years, the notion seems absurdly evil.
Progressives know this, and use the court system to mold the morality of the populace. For the Progressive, democracy is only as good as the ability to manipulate popular opinion.
That is not entirely true. Abortifacients were used prior to the inception of this country. Colonists brought that here. In fact, you can go back thousands of years and find it because people had sex.
Also, prior to the Kinsey reports, which is where a single act defined homosexuality in the US, there were gay people.But, they didn't call themselves "queer" because they just were. I find it absurd that it took a SC decision for same sex marriages. We are talking about something that involves two people that have as much right as straight couples to obtain happiness, develop financial security and benefits for the spouse etc.as straight people. That is completely different from say sex change operations on a 7 year old or some other such nonsense involving burly mens with beards and tattoos in dresses invading the women's bathroom and preying on daughters.
I don't understand the need to whitewash history as if there was some other pious morally pure period in history. I think this need to strictly view all others between two political ideologies is destructive. It's even a bit comical in that the true purveyors of morality are from the conservative section. Propaganda exists with either party.
Letter against Prohibition | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives
Do I think there are people that would take advantage of a situation? Yep. We have groups today that are hijacked for political purposes. We also have a plethora of groups that have ulterior motives that will jump on the bandwagon supporting measures. Do I think it was a plot? No. Do I think it became evident the money came from somewhere? Yep. I just don't see a Mr. Burns back there. Perhaps I am judging the 65th Congress by today's standards but I do not see these folks as being intelligent enough to pull that off.
Politics is nothing but one large cabal. If we knew the truth, they would never get elected.
But, we do know the truth and that's why people don't often show up. But, agree in sentiment.
People are sheep. If Progressives don't have popular support, then they manufacture it.
Case in point is abortion. Before it was legalized, the majority consensus was that it was immoral. However, decades after being legalized through the courts the public sentiment is that it is OK, although not ideal.
Gay marriage is the same. Before being made law by the courts people were asked to vote on it and voted against it. However, after the courts strong armed the people and made it law, today most support it.
It is just how we are wired. We adjust our morality to perceived authority figures.
Historically we saw this with slavery. Before slavery was made illegal, the majority consensus was that it was OK although not ideal. Today, after being illegal for hundreds of years, the notion seems absurdly evil.
Progressives know this, and use the court system to mold the morality of the populace. For the Progressive, democracy is only as good as the ability to manipulate popular opinion.
That is not entirely true. Abortifacients were used prior to the inception of this country. Colonists brought that here. In fact, you can go back thousands of years and find it because people had sex.
Also, prior to the Kinsey reports, which is where a single act defined homosexuality in the US, there were gay people.But, they didn't call themselves "queer" because they just were. I find it absurd that it took a SC decision for same sex marriages. We are talking about something that involves two people that have as much right as straight couples to obtain happiness, develop financial security and benefits for the spouse etc.as straight people. That is completely different from say sex change operations on a 7 year old or some other such nonsense involving burly mens with beards and tattoos in dresses invading the women's bathroom and preying on daughters.
I don't understand the need to whitewash history as if there was some other pious morally pure period in history. I think this need to strictly view all others between two political ideologies is destructive. It's even a bit comical in that the true purveyors of morality are from the conservative section. Propaganda exists with either party.
I thought we were discussing the majority support of abortion or lack thereof, in which case I'm right.
Polls before Roe showed public, especially women, disapproved of abortion
There are now far more people who favor abortion today than prior to Roe vs. Wade.
As for marriage, don't get me started. I have no idea why a secular state gives a thumbs up or down on marriage and then gives them special perks. For what exactly? Because the state approves of your sexual union? Why then not let polygamist marry? It's nothing short of absurd. Why not give single people the same rights even?
As for moral purity, there has never been moral purity, but there is such a thing as having society that has more moral fiber than another. That is why the Revolution went so well. It was a country made of people seeking religious freedom, people who had moral fiber and within that society proceeded the Founding Fathers which also recognized the need for a society to have moral fiber in order to be able to be free.
