Harris Poll: Atlanta a less desirable place to live, but... (crime, wedding reception)

[SEAandATL]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

I agree.

If we go down this route of banning alcohol whose to say that banning sugar related foods and fat-foods isn't next? Don't these items cause diabetes and heart strokes/attacks?

I will never trust those who under one breath claim to be for "less government" and then under the other breath tells me that I am not allowed to partake of my rice wine!

Good point! I was just going to say the same thing. If the government bans everything that is considered bad for you, then we would be just like the "utopian" society in the movie "Demolition Man". You have to remember, Republicans are for less government economically, but they are for more government involvement when it comes to social/moral issues (abortion, homo-sexuality, sex, drugs, alcohol, religion, etc.), especially with the Christian conservatives. That is why Libertarian is the party that best fits my beliefs.

Back to the topic of alcohol, it does not kill if consumed responsibly and in moderation. In fact, it has been proven that red wine (1 or 2 glasses) is actually good for you and may reduce the risk of cancer.

[Stars&StripesForever]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

You really want to go there? Think of all the crime, deaths, and corruption that took place during the prohibition days with alcohol. We brown-bagged it and infinitely reduce the criminal empires and destroyed the black markets that sprung up because of prohibited alcohol!

Also Western European has the lowest rates of deaths from drug use in the world. That's because they have a cultural mandate to make sure each of their citizens are educated on its usage and side effects, something that virtually doesn't take place here in the U.S.A.

But seeing as how if you want to go down that tired failed "Drug War" route, then let's do this: I'll join you to ban alcohol if...you will join me ban handguns and rifles, since these weapons too kill thousands.

Agreed?

Is alcohol in the constitution? NO

Is the right to bear arms in the Constitution? Yes

Does alcohol protect people from the government? NO

Do guns protect people and their homes from an intrusive government, were they to overstep their Constitutional bounds? YES

Two totally different things.

[Stars&StripesForever]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

So you should agree with me then that it wasn't right for Mayor Reed to push those Occupy Atlanta protestors out of Woodruff park, right? They haven't physically assaulted anyone, or spread rumors about any persons that would put anyone's life in jeopardy.

As you've said it yourself, "Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech."

I agree with the mayor. Occupy Atlanta was becoming a public nuisance, keeping people awake at night with their singing, chanting, drum-beating, concerts, etc. That's called disturbing the peace.

If a group of people were set up in Woodruff Park for days and weeks on end, yelling with megaphones that they didn't like black people, white people, or what ever other group, I'd also be in favor of their removal, if it was preventing people from sleeping comfortably at night and being able to live in peace within the confines of their own home. No one has a right to purposefully penetrate a person's home with noise of such extreme decibel levels.

Occupy forces also didn't get a permit.

[Stars&StripesForever]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism or disapproval.

The opponents of "political correctness" seem to get tangled up in that. There's nothing prohibiting us from using insulting language or from using ethnic, sexual or other slurs. Fire away!

However, that doesn't mean everyone else has to remain silent when I speak. If they find something I say offensive, they have the right to express disapproval. All of that is 100% legal.

The opponents of "political correctness" seem to think they should not only have the right to say whatever they want, but the special right to not be criticized for it.

I have every right to call somebody a mean old, conniving pot-bellied battleaxe, even though many would consider such talk inappropriate and insulting. Free speech gives me the absolute and complete right to say it, whether it's "politically correct" or not. But I don't have any right to not be criticized for talking that way.

As a private citizen you have a right to say something back. My argument, as well as Northwinds, I'm sure, is when people try to make certain words and thoughts illegal, or when they try to hurt a person's livelihood by threatening employment termination for simply expressing a politically unpopular view, usually without recourse or even warning.

[Stars&StripesForever]

Originally Posted by Lady's Man

what is the purpose of doing anything Society has determined that alcohol is acceptable to drink, just like it has decided that energy drinks or soda are acceptable.

Do energy drinks and "SOFT DRINKS" cause people to become drunken and lose the abilities to properly drive a vehicle? NO

DO energy and soft drinks cause people to participate in domestic violence at much higher rates? NO

Alcohol, morally speaking, is not an acceptable to drink. Society has deemed a lot of perverse things are acceptable, it doesn't mean that they are.

I simply think that alcohol defenders do so out of anger of realizing that they're of such weak-will that they feel the need to lose their problems in a bottle of beer or brandy. It's also partially the immaturity factor. I very much remember back in college that those who partook in alcohol were blatantly the most immature people on campus.

[Stars&StripesForever]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

I agree.

If we go down this route of banning alcohol whose to say that banning sugar related foods and fat-foods isn't next? Don't these items cause diabetes and heart strokes/attacks?

I will never trust those who under one breath claim to be for "less government" and then under the other breath tells me that I am not allowed to partake of my rice wine!

Fatty foods don't cause danger to other people. The person who knowingly ingest it knows the risks. Those who drink alcohol not only take risks for themselves, but also the people around them. Two totally separate things.

[Stars&StripesForever]

Originally Posted by muxBuppie

Did this guy really just call all people who drink dumb?

Then goes on to tell us how prohibition is better for society when all it does is breed violent gangs and crime?

Your argument is inherently fallacious.

Yes, prohibition did cause some of the most determined alcoholics and sellers to "go underground" to sell and get their drinks, often operating in basements. It did open a black market. As with anything made illegal, a black market will always open up. You can't completely eradicate it, but you can eradicate at least 95% of it.

All in all, a modern prohibition of alcohol over the long haul would result in a vast drop of alcohol related deaths, alcoholic related diseases, alcohol-related domestic violence incidents, and every form of ill that you can imagine. Simply because a black market would open up is often used as a justification by the "sucking back on grandma's cough medicine" crowd to rah rah in support of their favorite poison, alcohol. They then claim that a hard core drug, which alcohol is, is about "rights", when no other drug kills as many innocent people as does alcohol.

[AcidSnake]

Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever

Is alcohol in the constitution? NO.

What a fallacious statement. Prohibition of Alcohol was repealed with the 21st amendment and should have no bearing on conversation.

Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever

Is the right to bear arms in the Constitution? Yes.

If you arguing that this amendment applies to personal ownership, that's pretty arguable. Some people would say that ownership of firearms really only applies to a state-regulated militia...not individuals, but that's immaterial to this discussion.

Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever

Does alcohol protect people from the government? NO.

Doesn't mean it should be banned. To take your logic to its most extreme conclusion we may as well ban any other foodstuffs that has been deemed a health hazard because of high fat content.

Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever

Do guns protect people and their homes from an intrusive government, were they to overstep their Constitutional bounds? YES.

Debateable.

Goverment is compose of people and can and often be manipulated by the actions of an elite group and often with the support of a clear majority. African Americans certainly weren't afforded much protection by an "intrusive" government(insert Jim Crow/Black Codes). But again that's an argument for another day.

Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever

Two totally different things.

And yet you are willing to use big government to enforce your point-of-view on one aspect of human life while being perfectly fine with that same big government leaving another alone. Some would call that hypocrisy.

Is it safe to say that you love big government when it applies to forcing others to accomodate your personal belief system?

[AcidSnake]

Those who chose to own handguns and keep them in their homes also pose a risk to others around them, children especially.

Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever

Fatty foods don't cause danger to other people. The person who knowingly ingest it knows the risks. Those who drink alcohol not only take risks for themselves, but also the people around them. Two totally separate things.

[AcidSnake]

Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever

I agree with the mayor. Occupy Atlanta was becoming a public nuisance, keeping people awake at night with their singing, chanting, drum-beating, concerts, etc. That's called disturbing the peace.

Of course you would. I wouldn't expect otherwise. But I do so wish that folks like you would quit with your postering of being against big government interference and then loving that same big government when it comes to your own pet causes. Just sayin' I guess.

Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever

If a group of people were set up in Woodruff Park for days and weeks on end, yelling with megaphones that they didn't like black people, white people, or what ever other group, I'd also be in favor of their removal, if it was preventing people from sleeping comfortably at night and being able to live in peace within the confines of their own home. No one has a right to purposefully penetrate a person's home with noise of such extreme decibel levels.

Occupy forces also didn't get a permit.

Debateable on whether or not the Occupy Atlanta folks were causing that much noise. I work downtown everyday and walk through Woodruff park daily and was there when those kids were protesting. I heard no loud noises on a consistent level nor any constant screaming from the megaphone.

I'd wager that the Atlanta Police with the help of an increasing pro-suburban conservative local media embellished the hazards alledged to be coming from the Occupy Atlanta folks. Stuff like that tends to happen when the status quo is upset that someone may be demanding a larger piece of the American economic pie.

Long story short: You and others like you tend to pick and chose your big goverment poison to like or hate. Just for that reason alone, your protestations on these issues should be addressed with a big fat ignore.

I'm buying my Rice Wine tonight!