Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Legislation

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Aschlafly- Please, could you explain why you reverted my changes? I didn't think the Volstead Act was exactly 'great', do you? Drinking decreased by only about 30%, and everyone else was drinking illegally. "By 1925 in New York City alone there were anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs" [1]. Besides, it allowed gangsters like Al Capone to make a mint off of illegal sales. The police weren't even able to enforce it! Additionally, when you revert changes could you offer some sort of explanation? It makes contributing to this encyclopedia frustrating when changes are constantly reverted without any explanation. Thank you, FernoKlumpAll the funny lines are banned 20:00, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Ferno, you were the one who reverted someone else's edit, and you did not provide a meaningful explanation. Given the harm caused by alcohol, with 10% of the public alcoholic and 25,000 a year killed by drunk drivers, and hundreds of thousands killed by alcohol-related diseases, someone else's edit is at least worth debating before censoring immediately.--Aschlafly 20:05, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
I at least gave some insight to what I was thinking. I said "The Volstead Act wasn't exactly 'great', ever hear of the gangsterism of the 1920s?" in the edit summary. You, however, just reverted with no explanation. I apologize for attempting to better this article. I had thought that prohibition caused more problems than it solved, but I was obviously wrong because you happen to disagree. By the way, your claim that I censored it immediately doesn't make much sense considering I removed the Volstead Act nearly it 5 hours after it was added. FernoKlumpAll the funny lines are banned 20:15, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
You censored someone else's edit without discussing it before or after on the talk page. Your edit summary comment is absurd, and does not justify your censorship. "Gangsterism" did not go away when prohibition was repealed, obviously, and surely existed before the Volstead Act also.--Aschlafly 20:18, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

OK, prohibition did not have a major effect on crime. If that is what you believe, that is fine. I honestly do not care enough about this article to continue arguing. FernoKlumpAll the funny lines are banned 20:22, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Ferno, you fell for the often-taught "gangster" explanation hook, line and sinker. No big deal, we've all been fooled many times in our lives. What makes a difference is to be able recognize being fooled, admitting it, and then taking steps not to be fooled as much in the future.--Aschlafly 20:44, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

If prohibition doesn't explain the rise of gangsterism, as suggested by Aschlafly, what does?--JArneal 23:25, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

What "rise in gangsterism"? And what significance would it have? Simply to ask the questions is to demonstrate the absurdity of the theory.--Aschlafly 23:53, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

I was only asking what is wrong with "the often taught 'gangster' explanation." I learned that organized crime and illegal alcohol sales in the 1920s were directly related. Organized crime occurs only when there is money or some other form of personal gain to be made of off something illegal. It's just common sense. Selling and transporting alcohol was illegal then, and according to Ferno's information that alcohol consumption decreased by only 30 percent[2], there was plenty of money to be made. It wasn't a coincidence that organized crime became prominent with bosses like Al Capone and Bugs Moran in this time period. They got rich because they were the heads of crime organizations that were illegally transporting and selling alcohol. Why is this argument significant? Because a piece of legislation that has the effect of increasing organized crime without providing a solution to it at the same time is not what I, or anyone I know, would call great conservative legislation.--JArneal 15:51, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

That's called "Hollywood history." Maybe we need an entry for it. Al Capone was popularized by Hollywood, and now everything thinks that Prohibition is what created organized crime. But Prohibition ended over 70 years ago! Organized crime wasn't affected, it obviously finds other illegal activities to profit from. And it surely did so before Prohibition went into effect.
Please recognize that some widely taught things about history are actually false or misleading. Guess what: not everything you learned about history is actually true. If you really want to get to the bottom of this, then realize why there is a political benefit for people to claim (falsely) that Prohibition could not last because of the problem of "gangsterism".--Aschlafly 16:35, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
A major part of the problem is that Prohibition was not continued. God gave us this country, and wants us to keep it pure - and Prohibition was one of the smartest pieces of legislation every enacted. If only we could bring it back, we would be free of much of this heathen modern world, polluted by the 'Demon Drink'. If anyone is interested, I support Gene Amondson's campaign to bring back prohibition - http://www.geneamondson.com/mission/ MarianS 16:57, 16 May

2008 (EDT)

At least now I understand your argument, Aschlafly, but I refuse to believe that prohibition did not have a significant effect on organized crime. And to MarianS, I think that should be a debate topic. Remember, Jesus drank wine!--JArneal 17:32, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, I - and many others - do not believe Jesus ever consumed the 'Demon Drink'. Take a look at this page http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/didjesus.htm for lessons in why Jesus would never have drunk alcohol. It is forbidden, and we must not let it pass our lips. Titus 2:11-12 tells us, "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world." Alcohol is a Demon and must be banished from society. MarianS 17:47, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Another excellent debate topic! But this is not a debate page. I should not have made it so with my argumentative statements above.--JArneal 18:31, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Personal tools