Posted on 07/14/2004 7:46:19 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Actually, I know better than that.
TG is a theocrat. I know you are not.
Twisting Twenty Year Old statistics to present a dishonest series of propositions as proof, is in itself, pornographic in my view.
as for the beer.. make mine a sam adams please. And as for the "all three" comment? Let's just make that THREE sam adams on the house... PLUS a gander at the new Abercrombie and Fitch Catalogue tha went into print last month...
Some folks it seems, think a man mowing the grass with his shirt off... is pornographic via the community standards laws... go figure.
Using TJ's sources, the 20X turned out to be a wholly unsupportable number of 500,000!
And several posts previous to this, TJ has taken to complaining we are using his sources in our arguments! He himself has no tacitly admitted his sources are full of crap and not to be trusted.
Obviously, the number will be dependent upon how one defines what constitutes an "adult bookstore". If the US News article is accurate, that number was approximately 1,250 in 1997. Since I have no idea how the author derived his figures, I cannot comment on their accuracy.
robertpaulsen whines:
As a citizen, I sure would like to have a say-so in my state, or my city, or my community whether or not to allow porn, bookstores, etc.
______________________________________
You already do through zoning laws. All communities, towns, etc... have the right to prohibit the establishment of adult bookstores, strip clubs, etc... within their jurisdiction.
However, your communities should not have the power to not allow me to access porn on the internet if I lived in that town, or prevent me from having playboy delivered through the mail, or to watch porno movies on my DVD player.
431 -PL-
_______________________________________
Well put.
Notice the 'no comment' from the Communitarian crowd.
Take it up with them.
Take it up with them? YOUR the one posting the information as fact and as a major part of the basis for your argument.
Further, I have yet to see you post a single piece of factual information or respond to a single request for factual information and law code information. Why are you unable to do so?
Agreed.
Take it up with them.
Of course, Mr. Pilate.
I have no reason to doubt the Senate's findings. You have not disproven them.
The 3-1 claim has been disproven repeatedly on this thread. Over and over and over we have disproved it.
That rhetorical tactic lies in their quiver next to the ever-popular Circular Argument, Question-Begging, Argument From Absurdity, Emotional Apeals, and Ignoring Facts.
It backs up the 0.0mm shells they carry of Lies and Spin, coupled with Biased Statistics.
Not.
When people say that if we legalize marijuana the gang violence will stop, innocents won't be murdered, and peace on the streets will be restored, they're just referring to the marijuana gangs.
The other drug gangs will still be out there, blazing away. Well, that's no good. We'll hardly notice the difference.
Gee, I wonder when the pro-marijuana groups were going to tell us that street violence really won't be going away like they promise.
SCOTUS has reversed itself in the past and can do so again when it's clear that it's worked itself into an untenable position.
That's quite a lovely strawman. You should put up a display at a crafts show.
Actually the source is whoever testified to that before the committee. For all we know at this point, it could have been to author of the article himself.
How can you say with any shred of honesty or decency that the 3-1 claim has not been proven? The number of McDonalds has been shown on this thread and using your source of Adult Video News for the number of outlets where you can rent or buy porn the 3-1 claim is a lie.
Anything can be stated in congressional testimony. And yet I still eat apples with no fear of Alar.
Here we go again!
What threats would those be?
The threat of a free man going about his life without a by-your-leave to you? That threat? It is good that would-be tyrants feel threatened by that. It keeps them from trying to become real tyrants.
As for your whining about my alleged death threat, America is imposing Rule 7.62 on the enemies of freedom around the world, even as we speak. If you feel threatened by a reference to this great land's armed forces and their mission of defending liberty, then maybe, good sir, you should be in a cell with your buddies Achmed and Abdul, down in Gitmo.
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.