Posted on 07/14/2004 7:46:19 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
No, I am not a liar. The next sentence reads...
Adult bookstores outnumber McDonald's restaurants in the United States by a margin of at least three to one.
This has been show repeatedly to be a big fat lie.
I agree 100%!
Nothing like attempting to support a thesis of what is illegal porn, based on the legal opinion of an attorney general back 20 years ago...
by the way... I was unaware that AG opinions, and that of "panels" put together to espouse a certain legal view, is the equivalent of thirty years of Stare Decisis on free speech by the Supreme Court of the USA... Stare Decisis means something. We will never go back legally on certain issues.
the "sky is falling, because I saw a nekkid woman" cult... is over reaching with stuff like this.
THIS is a conservative website, that believes in SMALLER government... not the promotion of various degrees of a theocratic state.
We can believe in God as conservatives, but one cannot insist USING the state AS the means of enforcing THEIR peculiar view of God's will on their fellow man... and remain one.
Since he and his cohorts cannot support their own opinions, save with emotion and appeals to fear and disgust, does this suprise you?
I suspect you are posting to the wrong person. Am I right? And if not, please explain how your post to me squares with anything I have posted on this thread.
Yessir, sure glad we ended Prohibition so now we can have peace on the streets, just like Long Cut promised.
Do you ever get out or turn on the TV?
I assume that is a rhetorical question.
Even the 26,250 figure would not be three times the numbers of McDonalds (which would amount to around 39,000).
And I'm sure the "video stores" included here would be just about every Blockbuster store in the country. Blockbuster is no more an "adult video store" than Barnes & Noble is an "adult bookstore".
This is no different than what the liberals do; play games with statistics in order to create a "crisis" requiring a big government solution.
You are correct, in the Orewellean sense, Big Brother refers to the personification of the power of the state in the movie 1984.
Since then, it had morphed into "an all-powerful government or organization monitoring and directing people's actions", which is currently used to personify the fears of the people that the goverment is becoming too involved in their lives.
Although, we have not quite arrived at the Orewellian defintion, it is still used as an association none the less.
Fortunately, utilizing my, also great, powers of association I choose this image to successfully (my definition) illustrate my point.
I am a strict advocate of parental responsibility. I also know what micro-management does to a persons ability to make rational decisions.
So where is the balance? Would you have parents micro-manage their children to the point where they are incapable of making decisions? Or would you create an enviroment where parents can foster decision making ability based on their own belief system? Or would you choose to impose your beliefs and values on them at an impressionable age.
Yes, parents are responsible to protect and nuture their children, but nobody can control their environment, it's outside their "sphere of control".
This is where you and I can help, as a whole we have the ability to influence the environment, to make it a little easier for parents to raise their children without being buffeted by the vice-mongers.
We need to allow the children to learn how to make decisions before we expose them to the harshness of life. Protect them until their old enough to make those decisions on their own.
Let's keep the door locked for now.
For what it's worth, that's my 2 cents.
Of course, criminals would never have any motivation to blame something other than themselves for their crimes, right?
outlaw all "non-revealing" clothing?
just kidding...
Prohibition was never ended, it just changed substances. Of course, you already knew that!
Yessir, sure glad we ended Prohibition so now we can have peace on the streets, just like Long Cut promised.
Being that the gangs being spoken about were rum runners and other engaged in the illegal production, transportation, smuggling, and sale of alcohol I would say that yes, the gangs are gone.
Unless you are aware of some gangs who are engaged in that activity and controling the distribution and flow of alcohol that I am not aware of.
Who are and where are these gangs? And why hasnt the BATF done anything about them?
Your attempts bring the bloods, crips, and other modern day street gangs into a post regarding gangs who controled alcohol during prohibition is further evidence of your dishonesty.
I think post 514 will be of interest to you.
Ask me real nice and I'll think about it.
Oh, don't bother to refute my statement -- just continue to link to it from unrelated threads. Gutless.
Whether or not you are moral in your heart is not for the state to know, but your actions are for the state to regulate.
To say that people should not be forced to obey the law because it would take away their free will is to suggest that temporal authority has no right to enforce any law.
Its not the responsibility of the government to "create an environment" for parents to parent. It's my right, duty and responsibility to raise my kids. I don't need "help" from the nanny statists from the left or the right.
I also know what micro-management does to a persons ability to make rational decisions.
As their father, I am in the best position to know how much supervision they require.
Whether or not you are right with God is your business, not the state's.
I'm holding you to this comment . Good luck with your quest TJ . I suspect you might make the evening news sometime this year .
Something like a hostage situation seems more like your style .
You posted: "Probably someone just like you said during prohibition that if we would just legalize alcohol, all the gangs and drive-by shootings would go away."
The gang activity related to prohibited alcohol DID go away. You attempted to spin your way out of this laughable statement later.
Oh, and let's not forget your contention (since debunked) that rape increased as legal porn did, or your refusal to admit that porn is legal, or that the amount of kiddie porn (which is now illegal) would increase if mainstream porn were made "more legal".
You use such faulty logic, you almost make this boring.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.