A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

no mountain lions in Chicago



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 20th 18, 06:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 144
Default no mountain lions in Chicago

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 08:12:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 7:55:04 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 12:34:56 -0700 (PDT),
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?


Your logic is irrefutable, except of course you are wrong.

And, apparently you don't understand how the democratic system works.
In simple terms, the public elects the congressmen who vote in a
manner that is palatable to a sufficient number of their constituents
that they have a chance of re-election.

As for prohibition white people, I'm sure that they did represent
them. After all the prohibition movement dates back to as early as
1789. And don't forget that in a democratic system the losers don't
count. If you win the election you get the power, if you lose you wait
until the next election to get rich.

Lets see... Whiskey had been made in the U.S. in relatively small
amounts since the beginning. The "Whiskey Rebellion" occurred in 1791
in protest over the whiskey tax... the first tax imposed by the new
U.S. Government.

Given that the making of illegal whiskey dates back to the very early
days it is doubtful that there was an immediate increase in
manufacturer.

But regardless of all you may have read, prohibition
succeeded in cutting overall alcohol consumption in the U.S. in half
during the 1920s, and consumption remained below pre-Prohibition
levels until the 1940s. Rates of liver cirrhosis. for example, "fell
by 50 percent early in Prohibition and recovered promptly after Repeal
in 1933.

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.

Quite simply, your grandfather was breaking he law as Section 29 of
the Act allowed 200 gallons (the equivalent of about 1000 750 ml
bottles) of "non-intoxicating cider and fruit juice" to be made each
year at home. Initially "intoxicating" was defined as anything more
than 0.5%, but the Bureau of Internal Revenue soon struck that down
and this effectively legalized home wine-making.

So, your granddad with his 400 gallons was well over the limit for
legal home making.

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.


European and Canadian made liquor was the major illegal alcoholic
beverage smuggled into as the U.S. Local made stuff was rotgut and if
you had ever drank anything from the small back yard stills you'd know
it.


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.

Ancestry probably comes from Devonshire?

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.


What have Blacks in the back of the buss got to do with prohibition?


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.


I'm sure you are aware that many states imposed prohibition long
before the 18th amendment was made. Maine, for example made
prohibition the law in 1850 and some states chose to remain dry after
1933. Mississippi, the last entirely dry state, only repealed
Prohibition in 1966. Even today, more than 500 municipalities across
the United States are dry.


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.


What is with this "Those people you seem to
think were represented by Woodrow Wilson's Congress as they wrote..."

I was born in 1932 and spent much of my early life in Florida, Alabama
and Georgia and Mississippi and may well know a great deal more about
the so called "Negro Problem" then you do.

Winston Churchill was said to have stated that "The best argument
against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter".
He was sure right.


John, surely you know that your name is of Devonshire origin? That it is entirely likely that your entire life has been from a position where you actually believe the "people" were represented by what was a majority ENGLISH origin WHITE Congress. You most certainly didn't help change any minds with your comment about "the Negro problem" which wasn't a problem at all until the 1970's. I grew up in east Oakland and I would warrant that I know a HELL of a lot more about "negros" than you. They were the most respectable people in our particular neighborhood until the black power movement.


Hardly, my ancestors have lived in the U.S., specifically the northern
New England states since 16-hundred and something.

As for the so called Negro Problem apparently there was no "Negro
problem" in any of the southern states - I mentioned Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi and Alabama where I lived as a young man.

It is rather revealing of your knowledge about the problem that you
seem to believe that the "problem" originated in the 1970's. The Klu
Klux Klan was originally formed in the 1870's specifically to deal
with the problem, as it was seen to be, in the southern states.


While I'm a decade younger than you I still remember blacks forced to sit in the back of the bus.


So what? Sitting in the back of the bus was a very minor problem
compared being lynched.

But your bringing the so called Negro problem into a discussion of
prohibition, on a bicycle oriented site, is even more revealing. You
apparently don't know anything about bicycles, you don't know anything
about prohibition so you fall back on the so called Negro Problem.

Go away until you can talk about bicycles.
Ads
  #22  
Old August 20th 18, 07:23 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 158
Default no mountain lions in Chicago

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 10:23:00 AM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 08:12:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 7:55:04 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 12:34:56 -0700 (PDT),
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?

Your logic is irrefutable, except of course you are wrong.

And, apparently you don't understand how the democratic system works.
In simple terms, the public elects the congressmen who vote in a
manner that is palatable to a sufficient number of their constituents
that they have a chance of re-election.

As for prohibition white people, I'm sure that they did represent
them. After all the prohibition movement dates back to as early as
1789. And don't forget that in a democratic system the losers don't
count. If you win the election you get the power, if you lose you wait
until the next election to get rich.

Lets see... Whiskey had been made in the U.S. in relatively small
amounts since the beginning. The "Whiskey Rebellion" occurred in 1791
in protest over the whiskey tax... the first tax imposed by the new
U.S. Government.

Given that the making of illegal whiskey dates back to the very early
days it is doubtful that there was an immediate increase in
manufacturer.

But regardless of all you may have read, prohibition
succeeded in cutting overall alcohol consumption in the U.S. in half
during the 1920s, and consumption remained below pre-Prohibition
levels until the 1940s. Rates of liver cirrhosis. for example, "fell
by 50 percent early in Prohibition and recovered promptly after Repeal
in 1933.

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.

Quite simply, your grandfather was breaking he law as Section 29 of
the Act allowed 200 gallons (the equivalent of about 1000 750 ml
bottles) of "non-intoxicating cider and fruit juice" to be made each
year at home. Initially "intoxicating" was defined as anything more
than 0.5%, but the Bureau of Internal Revenue soon struck that down
and this effectively legalized home wine-making.

So, your granddad with his 400 gallons was well over the limit for
legal home making.

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.

European and Canadian made liquor was the major illegal alcoholic
beverage smuggled into as the U.S. Local made stuff was rotgut and if
you had ever drank anything from the small back yard stills you'd know
it.


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.

Ancestry probably comes from Devonshire?

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.

What have Blacks in the back of the buss got to do with prohibition?


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.

I'm sure you are aware that many states imposed prohibition long
before the 18th amendment was made. Maine, for example made
prohibition the law in 1850 and some states chose to remain dry after
1933. Mississippi, the last entirely dry state, only repealed
Prohibition in 1966. Even today, more than 500 municipalities across
the United States are dry.


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.

What is with this "Those people you seem to
think were represented by Woodrow Wilson's Congress as they wrote..."

I was born in 1932 and spent much of my early life in Florida, Alabama
and Georgia and Mississippi and may well know a great deal more about
the so called "Negro Problem" then you do.

Winston Churchill was said to have stated that "The best argument
against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter".
He was sure right.


John, surely you know that your name is of Devonshire origin? That it is entirely likely that your entire life has been from a position where you actually believe the "people" were represented by what was a majority ENGLISH origin WHITE Congress. You most certainly didn't help change any minds with your comment about "the Negro problem" which wasn't a problem at all until the 1970's. I grew up in east Oakland and I would warrant that I know a HELL of a lot more about "negros" than you. They were the most respectable people in our particular neighborhood until the black power movement.


Hardly, my ancestors have lived in the U.S., specifically the northern
New England states since 16-hundred and something.

As for the so called Negro Problem apparently there was no "Negro
problem" in any of the southern states - I mentioned Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi and Alabama where I lived as a young man.

It is rather revealing of your knowledge about the problem that you
seem to believe that the "problem" originated in the 1970's. The Klu
Klux Klan was originally formed in the 1870's specifically to deal
with the problem, as it was seen to be, in the southern states.


While I'm a decade younger than you I still remember blacks forced to sit in the back of the bus.


So what? Sitting in the back of the bus was a very minor problem
compared being lynched.

But your bringing the so called Negro problem into a discussion of
prohibition, on a bicycle oriented site, is even more revealing. You
apparently don't know anything about bicycles, you don't know anything
about prohibition so you fall back on the so called Negro Problem.

Go away until you can talk about bicycles.


John, you were the one who believed and all-white Congress represented this country. The Volstead Act proves otherwise. I don't think you have even a passing knowledge of what it was like not to be "white" which is Anglo-Saxon and Germanic.

ALL of the present day major brands of whiskey were made and sold during prohibition as "medical whiskey" so if you think that is rotgut perhaps you're not a whiskey drinker. Neither am I but I saw a LOT of drinkers which is why I never became one. A glass or two of wine or a beer or two is my limit..

Today there are something like 7 distilleries but during prohibition there were thousands of them. Kentucky had 183 all by themselves. And this wasn't cheap crap as you seem to think of it. Whiskey is EASY to make. Wine and beer much harder by comparison.
  #23  
Old August 20th 18, 07:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,297
Default no mountain lions in Chicago

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 11:23:29 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 10:23:00 AM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 08:12:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 7:55:04 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 12:34:56 -0700 (PDT),
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?

Your logic is irrefutable, except of course you are wrong.

And, apparently you don't understand how the democratic system works..
In simple terms, the public elects the congressmen who vote in a
manner that is palatable to a sufficient number of their constituents
that they have a chance of re-election.

As for prohibition white people, I'm sure that they did represent
them. After all the prohibition movement dates back to as early as
1789. And don't forget that in a democratic system the losers don't
count. If you win the election you get the power, if you lose you wait
until the next election to get rich.

Lets see... Whiskey had been made in the U.S. in relatively small
amounts since the beginning. The "Whiskey Rebellion" occurred in 1791
in protest over the whiskey tax... the first tax imposed by the new
U.S. Government.

Given that the making of illegal whiskey dates back to the very early
days it is doubtful that there was an immediate increase in
manufacturer.

But regardless of all you may have read, prohibition
succeeded in cutting overall alcohol consumption in the U.S. in half
during the 1920s, and consumption remained below pre-Prohibition
levels until the 1940s. Rates of liver cirrhosis. for example, "fell
by 50 percent early in Prohibition and recovered promptly after Repeal
in 1933.

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.

Quite simply, your grandfather was breaking he law as Section 29 of
the Act allowed 200 gallons (the equivalent of about 1000 750 ml
bottles) of "non-intoxicating cider and fruit juice" to be made each
year at home. Initially "intoxicating" was defined as anything more
than 0.5%, but the Bureau of Internal Revenue soon struck that down
and this effectively legalized home wine-making.

So, your granddad with his 400 gallons was well over the limit for
legal home making.

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.

European and Canadian made liquor was the major illegal alcoholic
beverage smuggled into as the U.S. Local made stuff was rotgut and if
you had ever drank anything from the small back yard stills you'd know
it.


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.

Ancestry probably comes from Devonshire?

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.

What have Blacks in the back of the buss got to do with prohibition?


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.

I'm sure you are aware that many states imposed prohibition long
before the 18th amendment was made. Maine, for example made
prohibition the law in 1850 and some states chose to remain dry after
1933. Mississippi, the last entirely dry state, only repealed
Prohibition in 1966. Even today, more than 500 municipalities across
the United States are dry.


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.

What is with this "Those people you seem to
think were represented by Woodrow Wilson's Congress as they wrote..."

I was born in 1932 and spent much of my early life in Florida, Alabama
and Georgia and Mississippi and may well know a great deal more about
the so called "Negro Problem" then you do.

Winston Churchill was said to have stated that "The best argument
against democracy is a five minute discussion with the average voter".
He was sure right.

John, surely you know that your name is of Devonshire origin? That it is entirely likely that your entire life has been from a position where you actually believe the "people" were represented by what was a majority ENGLISH origin WHITE Congress. You most certainly didn't help change any minds with your comment about "the Negro problem" which wasn't a problem at all until the 1970's. I grew up in east Oakland and I would warrant that I know a HELL of a lot more about "negros" than you. They were the most respectable people in our particular neighborhood until the black power movement.


Hardly, my ancestors have lived in the U.S., specifically the northern
New England states since 16-hundred and something.

As for the so called Negro Problem apparently there was no "Negro
problem" in any of the southern states - I mentioned Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi and Alabama where I lived as a young man.

It is rather revealing of your knowledge about the problem that you
seem to believe that the "problem" originated in the 1970's. The Klu
Klux Klan was originally formed in the 1870's specifically to deal
with the problem, as it was seen to be, in the southern states.


While I'm a decade younger than you I still remember blacks forced to sit in the back of the bus.


So what? Sitting in the back of the bus was a very minor problem
compared being lynched.

But your bringing the so called Negro problem into a discussion of
prohibition, on a bicycle oriented site, is even more revealing. You
apparently don't know anything about bicycles, you don't know anything
about prohibition so you fall back on the so called Negro Problem.

Go away until you can talk about bicycles.


John, you were the one who believed and all-white Congress represented this country. The Volstead Act proves otherwise. I don't think you have even a passing knowledge of what it was like not to be "white" which is Anglo-Saxon and Germanic.


Huh? Prohibition was criticized for being anti-German, which was a popular thing back in 1920 and prior (remember that war?). Prohibition was also a bottom-up movement with cities and states going dry before the 18th amendment was passed. In 1881, Kansas amended its constitution to outlaw the sale of alcohol. https://www.kshs.org/kansapedia/prohibition/14523 The temperance movement was much like the current nationalist trend, IMO, although hyper-propriety has been replaced with hyper-impropriety.

Of course, this has nothing to do with bikes -- or anything, really.

-- Jay Beattie.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New PA Uni Club: The Wobbling Lions podzol Unicycling 15 December 1st 06 05:55 AM
Wobbling Lions in the News!! podzol Unicycling 7 June 26th 06 01:57 AM
New PA Uni Club: The Wobbling Lions TheObieOne3226 Unicycling 0 April 30th 06 03:27 PM
1998 Trek 6500 ZX, Mountain bike for sale in chicago Michael Levin Marketplace 0 February 16th 04 04:09 AM
Mtn Lions and Bikes Stephen Harding General 115 January 21st 04 02:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.