What was the last thing you did for your country?

So your convinced that the unassailable reputation of political campaigns for issues as truthful and of the highest integrity will serve as a solid foundation for your argument that Prohibition was a failure?

Everything I posted prior is a matter of fact, every alcohol related social issue was dramatically improved during Prohibition and no social issues were made worse as a result of Prohibition.

Here is another.
Organized crime and the violent nature of such existed before and after Prohibition. Attempts to blame Prohibition for organized “Black Market Crime” is a fairy tale.

Not one single gangster was put out of work as a result of Prohibition being repealed, which should be obvious since there is never a shortage of Markets that cannot be served at a profit by bypassing taxes and regulations created by governments.

2 Likes

The problem is that this “eternity in hell”-argumentation works only on a religious basis. When I reproached: “You define which sacred writings should be accepted as the truth” you countered: “I believe [in Jesus]. I don’t tell people they have to believe”. But on the other side you insist that everyone should follow Christian rules.
So, you want to command people to follow rules which are based on a doctrine they do not necessarily believe in. Didn’t you see a problem here?

One more problem is arising here: Ultra-radicals would say that as a Christ you have to go to church every Sunday, to avoid hellfire. So if we argue hellfire based, didn’t we consequently have to force people by law to go to church every Sunday?

What you say is: You have evidence that porn will cause great damage in everyone, but you don’t have this evidence at hand. So we can not examine how cogent this evidence is.
At the same time you yourself said to Alaska Slim: “no matter that you can find links to say otherwise (you can find a link to “prove” anything you want to; or to deny it”.
Even if some “scientists” claim that they had proven something this doesn’t have to be true. If you want to forbid something that (allegedly) damages people deeply, you should be able to show evidence that this damage really occurs inevitably. If you could prove this for porn, I maybe would agree in a porn-prohibition.

The second problem is that you consider the whole issue in a very absolutistic manner. I said, I can agree that some people may be hurt by porn, but I still believe that many will not be hurt. As opposed to this, you still do not admit that there COULD be people that would not be hurt deeply.
Even if you know SOME girls that were hurt by pornography, why do you make the generalization that ALL people in contact with porn will be hurt?

This statement is a little bit self-righteous – isn’t it?

Do you defend people’s right to buy and eat fast-food and sweets? Yes?
-> You refuse to protect them from Tyranny of “hear attacks causing industry”,
-> you are an advocate for Anarchy.

Do you defend people’s right to smoke? Yes?
-> You refuse to protect them from the Tyranny of “lung-cancer causing industry”,
-> you are an advocate for Anarchy.

If you do not define the libertarian ideal as the maximization of freedom and self-responsibility - how else would you define it?
There are radical Libertarians who even want to legalize heroine – That’s going too far, even for me. But heroine is a drug that causes inevitable damage in everyone, if you could prove this for porn, I maybe would agree in a porn-prohibition. (See also what I wrote about hellfire above.)

Fact is murder rates increased, you can’t give me a single statistic showing it didn’t. I know you don’t have one, because the Government statistics of period, of which that chart is one, shows this occurring.

Further, while Beer drinking went down, hard liquor drinking went up, because it was easier to manufacture. It’s why America has a martini-drinking culture today.

Cause & effect.

There’s an easy way to tell that it wasn’t:

In the three months before the 18th Amendment became effective, liquor worth half a million dollars was stolen from Government warehouses. By midsummer of 1920, federal courts in Chicago were overwhelmed with some 600 pending liquor violation trials (Sinclair, 1962: 176-177). Within three years, 30 prohibition agents were killed in service.

Other statistics demonstrated the increasing volume of the bootleg trade. In 1921, 95,933 illicit distilleries, stills, still works and fermentors were seized. in 1925, the total jumped to 172,537 and up to 282,122 in 1930. In connection with these seizures, 34,175 persons were arrested in 1921; by 1925, the number had risen to 62,747 and to a high in 1928 of 75,307 (Internal Revenue, Service, 1921, 1966, 1970: 95, 6, 73). Concurrently, convictions for liquor offenses in federal courts rose from 35,000 in 1923 to 61,383 in 1932

Increased officer deaths, increased offenders arrested… all of which decreased after prohibition ended.

That’s petty self-evident proof. Same to this:

Since the organization of the prohibition service to February 1, 1926, 875 persons have been separated from the Prohibition Unit mostly for official faithlessness or downright rascality. Nor does the total that I have given include delinquents not dismissed but only allowed to resign. Neither has the Coast Guard, that nursing mother of brave and devoted men, military as its discipline is, by any means escaped the contamination of prohibition. Since the duty was assigned to it of preventing the smuggling of liquor from the sea into the United States, 7 temporary warrant officers, 11 permanent enlisted men, and 25 temporary enlisted men have been convicted of yielding, in one form or another, to the seductions of money or liquor in connection with prohibition work. I am unable to say how many members of the force have been arrested but not convicted. On December 10, 1925, a United Press dispatch reported that the entire crews of two Coast Guard patrol boats which had been assigned to patrol duty off the coast of Florida had been court-martialed for conniving with bootleggers.

In view of what I have said, it is not surprising that Dr. Horace Taft, head master of the Taft School at Watertown and brother of Chief Justice Taft, should have said a few days ago at a law-enforcement meeting at Yale, “The United States is threatened with the rotting of her moral foundations and of her political and social structure as a direct result of prohibition.”

“Statement by Hon. William Cabell Bruce, The National Prohibition Law, Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Sixty-Ninth Congress, April 5 to 24, 1926”

Corruption advances. Again, self-evident proof; the number of officers who had to be dismissed dramatically increased.

Police Corruption, murder rates, organized crime, age of drinking.

You also forget, that while consumption may not have been illegal, the Gov’t made it dangerous by poisoning all legal forms of alcohol. The Government was literally paying to poison its own citizens

1 Like

AS, I thought about not responding to your last post here (and I’m not on the subject of porn itself or your rule of law points), because I couldn’t think of a nice way to say it. But nice or not, I decided (for better or worse, correctly or not) that it needed to be said.

I submit (and intend to prove) that you are guilty of hypocrisy.

The whole point of mentioning the issue about the range figures (about the F-15E (including vis-a-vis F-15C), F-16, and F-18) was to illustrate the untrustworthiness of your “facts” and cherry-picked sources.

In that debate, I was bringing up the ACTUAL NUMERICAL RANGE of the aircraft in question as a SIDE ISSUE to the debate that you keep trying to drag it back into. The ACTUAL NUMERICAL RANGE was NOT about Djibouti to Benghazi, or Walla Walla Washington to Timbuktu, or Tattooine to Alderaan, or anything else.

I made a strong case that the F-15E figure was low by contrasting it with MULTIPLE NAMED SOURCES (at least three, and I think four) with the range of the F-15C, and challenged you to explain what was so radically different about the F-15E from the C that would result in such a radically lower range; and you never gave a straight answer. You just reverted to “the F-15E isn’t the F-15C.”

I made a COMPELLING case that you low-balled the range figures for the F-16 and F-18, also backed up with MULTIPLE NAMED SOURCES. And not only did you not respond to the specifics I cited, you went on to insist that you hadn’t low-balled the figures, even though I demonstrated that the F-16 figure you provided was for the YF-16 PROTOTYPES instead of the production models.

I notice you getting irritated with another poster in another thread for ignoring what you posted about the Earth being round. Yet you yourself dodged all the DOCUMENTED evidence I posted. That is a double standard.

This, then, is why I brought all this up. I cited it in this thread as evidence of your cherry-picking of evidence and your generally less than forthright debating practices here, and I did so to cast doubt upon your argument (and I’m satisfied that it was legitimate to do so).

I think the real issue here (your argument to the contrary not withstanding) isn’t with who I think I am, but with who you think YOU are, and with who OTHERS think you are. You like to tweak people with an air of superiority in your arguments (I won’t say I haven’t been guilty of the same), but you lash out with vitriolic rants when someone steps on YOUR ego. I can’t say this as a definite thing, but I suspect that more than one or two other members notice it as well.

You are intellegent. But many of your arguments are not forthright. Don’t be surprised when you’re called on it.

1 Like

Phillip, I’ll get back to your posts (hopefully) tomorrow. I disagree with your debates, but I respect them.

I submit (and intend to prove) that you are guilty of hypocrisy.

The whole point of mentioning the issue about the range figures (about the F-15E (including vis-a-vis F-15C), F-16, and F-18) was to illustrate the untrustworthiness of your “facts” and cherry-picked sources.

In that debate, I was bringing up the ACTUAL NUMERICAL RANGE[/quote]

BS, you changed the topic to that, because the actual reason reason it was brought up was if an F-15E could get from Dibjouti to Benghazi and back.

That is why we started discussing it, and it was the only reason I discussed it with you. I don’t give a damn about a technical argument. The only thing I ever cared about was you using this as a proxy to keep insisting that there was a conspiracy, WHEN THERE WAS NONE!

It’s all right ******* here:

This isn’t hypocrisy, you shifted the goal posts, because you found out, no matter what source you read from, it proved me correct.The F-15E does not have the range to do that mission, period.

1 Like

Yes . . .

Bob? I’m calling foul. Context illuminates this issue.

qixlqatl and FC, and Dave, supported a conspiracy theory where the Air Force willfully stood down on Benghazi. They then accused me of being a sycophant of the Obama Administration for insisting they didn’t.

An accusation of someone else’s honor (with no proof), on top of ad hominem.

Meanwhile, I’m the son of someone who was at the Pentagon on 9/11, and I’ve gone through 16 years of people telling me that my Mother is a traitor, who willfully sold out her country, because she noticed plane parts.

So let’s see: I have a longstanding vendetta against ***holes who accuse soldiers like my mother blindly, plus, I was being given poor arguments for why the Air Force/AFRICOM didn’t do its job for not stopping Benghazi, while also being accused myself of being a hack/ secret liberal for defending the Air Force.

I mean gee, let’s think on this for a second: why could I possibly feel, express, or hold resentment?

Did any of them ever walk back the accusation that I was defending Obama? Nope. Did they ever admit they were wrong, or that they at least had no evidence to support their suspicions about the Air Force? Nope.

Did FC himself even attempt to clear the air before “insisting” he was switching the topic, just to one of a technical debate about aircraft?

NOT EVEN CLOSE.

It kept being about Benghazi again, and again. Each time the range issue was brought up.

FC? I don’t know if you’re just forgetting that part or lying, but either way, you done goofed up, again.

Oh, and, I mentioned that I was wrong twice in that first thread, once to Patricia, once to you.

Here I’am, admiting that I was wrong three times, to you, about the F-16, where Benghazi wasn’t involved.

Amazing how that can happen. It’s almost like I’m an agreeable person when people don’t insult me or accuse the military of treason.

I’m not perfect, but “ego” isn’t my flaw. It’s being quick to anger with people who willfully push my buttons, whether they realize they’re pushing them or not.

1 I honestly don’t know where that line should be drawn. I know that Satan uses homosexuality to try to drive a wedge between men and God, but I’m not as clear on it being man’s predation (I’m sure it is, but I don’t know where to look). Porn has a much more obvious and visible element of predation (which is one reason why I feel it’s a natural target for the law).

2 No, actually, I did take your position on this issue as libertarian.
3 On the whole, I agree that government should stay out of people’s lives. However, I do believe there’s a role for government to protect people from falling into nefarious traps. The porn industry is such.

4 I don’t see this as a conflict. I’m asserting a distinction between thought and what I firmly believe to be harmful action.
5 The Founding Fathers of this nation didn’t see a problem with it. Contrary to the lies of the left, this nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian values.
6 Nope. I’m speaking of things that preclude harmful action toward others; not harmful inactions. And saying you absolutely must attend church every week I think is dogma and legalism (against which Jesus spoke). There are good reasons to do so generally, but I defy anyone to make a case for missing a service (I miss most, because my health doesn’t let me travel to town that often) being an automatic damnation.

7 Which is why I would encourage you (and anyone else who reads this) to research it yourself. Don’t just settle for one source, and consider the sources that you do find. Again, I don’t recommend trusting leftist sources for anything sexual; as I see it, they’re on the side of debauchery.
8 Again, don’t trust just one source. Research, and not necessarily in one fell swoop. Keep building your knowledge over time. That’s my recommendation.
9 Like I said, I’ve read and heard these things on the radio from sources I trust. I can’t link you to a book or old radio programs (sometimes when they have something, I can link and have linked to it; especially Focus on the Family, because they offer the radio discussion in text, as well as providing associated links).
10 I’ve already made the basic case; I feel that our nature (as God made us) is such that we cannot help but be harmed by it whether we know it or not.

…And Alaska Slim STILL hasn’t given a straight answer about his low-balling of the ranges of the F-15E, F-16, and F-18…

Not holding my breath…

As AS continues to re-edit his post…

For someone who doesn’t care who I think I am, I do seem to have caused him a shortage of goats…

And as you missed the part where I actually did explain why your figures for the F-15C don’t match the F-15E…

Utilizing one of your own sources no less for Combat radius.

I don’t seem to have ever mentioned a specific range for the F-16, other than that the roughly 1,000 miles between Aviano and Benghazi was too much for it to cross without tankers.

So just keeping track here:

I do admit when I’m wrong (did it several times, even when it concerned the F-16)

You have a history of making accusations based on faulty memory. Like you did here.

And I actually did what you said I didn’t. You just seemed to have missed the last post in that thread.

The only part I didn’t answer was the F-18, which was a rough average of the combat radius Global Security gave for it.

Even if their figures are “low” according to you— so what? Even a best case scenario of +600 NM, doesn’t overcome the +3000 nm they had to cross to reach Benghazi. They were even further away than the F-15Es, which also lacked the range.

We simply came back to: No assets were in range.

1 Like

Whoa . . . whoa . . . whoa, dude. Back up a second.

This is the second time you’ve made one of these incredibly huge leaps, this one concluding in unrelated melodrama. The first time was here: President Trump carries through with America First immigration policy

My simple ‘yes’ did not cast doubt upon your character, nor on your Mother (that’s not my style) . . . nor do I know anything . . . zilch, zip, nada . . . about F-16’s, 18’s, range, etc. You and FC can argue all you want about that stuff, and for all I know, the range of those things could be a gazillion miles. I have no idea.

Once again, I have no idea how you made the pole vault to issues about “honor”, 9/11, “16 years of people telling me that my Mother is a traitor” (that one was particularly melodramatic), Benghazi, your “buttons”, etc., from my simple ‘yes’.

So, what was my ‘yes’ actually regarding? I was agreeing with FC that you project “an air of superiority in your arguments” to the point of being obnoxious.

I can’t put my finger on it, but there’s something about your approach to “debate” that just rubs me the wrong way.

Am I calling your baby ugly? Yes . . . this is the Internet . . . big deal. I’m sure that’s happened before . . . and it’s certainly happened to me plenty of times. Just as you do for me, I myself rub some people the wrong way too. Again . . . big wup.

I do not hold your arguments, nor your method of making them, in high regard. To be fair, some of what you say may hold water, but I’ve long since written you off as not credible, so anything you say now is tainted by that opinion.

If I had to choose a person to represent my arguments, it would NOT be you. If I had to choose a person to repel others . . . it would be YOU.

I would not have made a post such as this if it hadn’t been for your “calling foul”.

1 Like

Does it make ANY sense to anyone else to base fighters over 1000+ miles away from a likely area of conflict WITHOUT also basing tanker support nearby?

How about you go look at your post in the very thread you’ve linked here ,and ask yourself “what was I [Bobjam] contributing to this thread?” “What was my tone?”

You weren’t contributing to the already on-going discussion. You also weren’t answering what immigration policy should be.

You were balking at libertarians for having a principle, by chaining immigration policy to a popularity poll.

Ad hominem, for the sake of ad populum. Two fallacies in one go, and it was both meant to attack me personally. This we can see, by how you were quoting me while you “made your point”.

You attacked me, so how am I going to respond back Bobjam? What tone will I take in response to your shot across my bow?

If you want geniality, then offer it. It’s that simple. If you attack me, I will respond in kind. I’m reflecting the tone you gave me. If you don’t like it, then don’t use it. That should be common sense.

Notice I didn’t name you. Even though you did join into that conspiracy theory on another thread I wasn’t apart of.

If the area is of lower priority… yes. The State Department has to tell the military where they’re most vulnerable. The Pentagon offered to keep more assets near to Benghazi, AFRICOM even offered to station some returning Specops teams as guards. The State Department said no.

AFRICOM has other places it needs to put these resources, so what is it supposed to do?

All they knew was that the CIA and DoS were doing something in Libya, and that they were supposed to steer clear of their operation.

So they stuck to a standard contingency plan that, surprise, wasn’t enough, because the State Department overestimated their own mission’s security.

To the previous summarization of your positions I can add:

  • Not only broken family and psychological damage is an after-effect, but also eternity in hell.
  • People should not be free in deciding to be in contact / or not with porn because of
    a) the aspect of manipulation (by pornographers)
    b) the circumstance that they do not fully realize porn consequences

I was wondering why anyone should ever want to forbid anything that people could decide to do voluntarily. But you are referring to a) and b) here. You see a kind of involuntariness although people are acting – at least assessed from a superficial perspective – voluntarily. That’s what you mean when you say: Voluntariness is not Consensus.
Your argument is: People need to be protected even if they act voluntarily (from a legal perspective), because in porn-situations they do not really understand what they are doing. Either they are manipulated so drastically that they are doing things (acting in porn) that they actually do not want to do from the deepest part of their hearts or they do it because they can’t see or realize or recognize or comprehend the full situation and its consequences (threats by porn).

O.K. This is not how I see it, but I think I can understand your perspective. I’m able to reconstruct your position at the most when I compare porn with heroine. As I said before, I do not support the position of some ultra-libertarians to legalize heroine – because the threat is too high and damage inevitable. This case is very similar. In this case I also would say people do not know what they are doing even if they take heroine voluntarily.
If I would find an objective and cogent prove that porn is at least as problematic as heroine, I would maybe agree that porn should be forbidden.

Eternity in hell as a threat

I want to live in a Judeo-Christian society too, but for me the motivation is different: I do not want to be surrounded by Moslems. Reasons are cultural issues. But I accept it, if someone is agnostic or moderate in Christianity. And I accept it, if they do not follow Christian rules. The last point is the difference between you and me.

You do not see a conflict when you

  • say: “I don’t tell people they have to believe” but at the same time
  • insist that everyone should follow certain Christian rules.

For me there is a conflict. I think, if someone does not believe to hellfire, government should not dictate him to follow rules to avoid hellfire. If someone would force me to follow rules derived from a doctrine I do not totally believe in, I would feel other-dictated.
Wouldn’t this transform the USA from the land of the free and the home of the brave into the land of the other-directed and the home of religious paternalism?

I know this is in competition with your manipulation-argument summarized above – but:
I still think religion should be private matter – totally.
Everyone has the freedom to follow strict religious rules. Everyone has the freedom to join an orthodox church. But I think nobody should be forced by government to follow these rules. Why should he be – he can do it freely?

I don’t know about you, but my religion cannot be “totally private.” My religion commands me to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” Besides, if it doesn’t permeate my entire life, it’s not worth much.

1 Like

Every society HAS to live according to SOME ethic. OURS is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic and always HAS been as long as we’ve existed as a nation. Don’t like it? Fine by me, but you WILL adhere to it our find yourself somewhere “better” to live, and good luck with that. We will NOT sit still while you strive to impose YOUR sense of right and wrong on everyone else. We will fight you tooth and nail to keep you from turning this nation into another “if it feels good–do it” socialist “utopia.” I want a nation in which our kids can play outdoors without worrying that some pervert will snatch them. I want a nation in which such perverts are ELIMINATED from society–permanently, and I don’t care if that means locking them up for their lifetime or executing them. Either works for me.

O.K.
About what perverts are you actually talking? Did you even read our whole conversation?
You pick out one, two sentences and make inferences fully out of the context.
Which perverts that snatch any kids did I defend?

Did I impose MY sense of right and wrong on anyone else?
Is questioning a standpoint and taking another the same than imposing something?
Is taking a Libertarian position so unusual?

The best way to strengthen your own standpoint is to scrutinize it! If your position is good – its truth will shine even brighter if others tried to refute it and you defended it successfully. But if you avoid or eschew people with different opinions, you will not be prepared for offenses in the future. Do you think that I am the only person that takes the position that government and religion should be separated? And isn’t it better if you here these positions from another conservative (like me) than from a left-wing democrat?

I showed more than one time that my preferred perspective is not a “socialist utopia” but instead conservative/libertarian. Instead of constantly insinuating that I said things I never said (or even implied), I would recommend you to take this conversation as a chance to enhance your ability to question and defend your own position. If you want to live in a society that bases on your ideas, you don’t have to convince me, you rather have to convince hundred millions left-wing Americans.

And think about this: They will take these positions and use it to try to transform America into a “socialist utopia”. When I discuss here, my effort is to help YOU avoiding this - sadly you do not realizes this.