View Single Post
  #16  
Old August 17th 18, 09:27 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default no mountain lions in Chicago

On 8/17/2018 3:04 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 12:34:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 14, 2018 at 2:58:22 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 14:17:35 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 10:34:22 AM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 12:00:40 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/11/2018 9:26 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, August 11, 2018 at 5:50:09 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
https://wbbm780.radio.com/articles/b...list-west-side

Who doesn't get shot in Chicago? I'd be surprised if a cyclist didn't get shot.


You have a good point the
https://wbbm780.radio.com/articles/n...-park-shooting

Chicago has among the most restrictive sets of anti-firearm
legislation in the country. How's that working out?


Well, as everyone knows, if you make a law against something people
will stop doing it.

There are many examples in U.S. history. The Volstead Act comes to
mind here as a particularly effective example of this.

This was very odd - most of the people of the world normally drank something alcoholic with dinner. To interfere with that only could have been attempted by some sort of insane congress.

As the so called Volstead act, involved the 18th amendment of the U.S.
constitution it required ratification by the states. The details of
the act wee as followed:

On August 1, 1917, the Senate passed a resolution containing the
language of the amendment to be presented to the states for
ratification. The vote was 65 to 20, with the Democrats voting 36 in
favor and 12 in opposition; and the Republicans voting 29 in favor and
8 in opposition. The House of Representatives passed a revised
resolution[7] on December 17, 1917.

In the House, the vote was 282 to 128, with the Democrats voting 141
in favor and 64 in opposition; and the Republicans voting 137 in favor
and 62 in opposition. Four Independents in the House voted in favor
and two Independents cast votes against the amendment.[9] It was
officially proposed by the Congress to the states when the Senate
passed the resolution, by a vote of 47 to 8, the next day.

When the act was offered to the states for ratification 46, of the
then 48 states, voted for the act.

It appears that, by a very wide margin, the U.S. demonstrated that
they DID NOT want a glass of wine with their supper.


Tell us all John - how many of those congressmen were representatives of anyone other than prohibition white people? The very fact that whiskey, beer and wine were immediately made underground proves that the majority of the population was NOT represented. The act allowed you to make wine for your personal use. But wine has to be make in large quantities to be correct. And not a lot of people know who to make wine properly - so my grandfather used to make it for the entire Slav neighborhood. So he always had a 150 gallon barrel with the fresh squeeze, another 150 gallon barrel aging and another 150 gallon being used. This was totally illegal under prohibition but the Slavs, Italians, Pols, Portuguese, Spanish and French ALL did the same thing.

Underground breweries were everywhere. And the big time gangs made whiskey sometimes better than the best from European distillers. There wee speakeasys on every block.

I really don't think that some man whose ancestry probably comes from Devonshire should be telling the rest of the world about representation in the 1920's. You know, when Chinese were limited to the ghettos called Chinatowns and when blacks were forced to "separate but equal" laws, blacks only restrooms and forced to sit in the backs of buses. Not to mention sticking Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps so that FDR's pals could seize their property and bank accounts.

I don't know who or what you think you are but I or my family lived through this crap. I remember when blacks were limited to the back of the buses. My best childhood friend grew up in a concentration camp and his sister, my classmate, was born there.

Prohibition probably caused more drunks than there were before. Most of the white men that grew up in prohibition and lived in my area would never draw a sober breath. The morning after you had to have a "hair of the dog" which started the whole damn cycle again.

The only responsible and respectable people in my neighborhood were almost entirely blacks. Those people you seem to think were represented by Woodrow Wilson's Congress as they wrote segregation laws.


Wilson vetoed the Volstead Act, BTW.

I'm not following the argument about racist presidents. John B was just talking about passage of the 18th Amendment, which was ratified by 46 states. That's a lot of states -- and not just an "insane congress." If you want to rant about Wilson's insane congress, look to the Sedition and Espionage Acts.

-- Jay Beattie.


Even a lousy Congress has its good days. At least they
rejected Wilson's one-worlder schemes.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home