Harris Poll: Atlanta a less desirable place to live, but... (tax rates, to move)

[afonega1]

Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever

You're correct. I should have been more clear. Originally, nothing relating to alcohol was stated in the Constitution. It was prohibition by way of an amendment which made it illegal, and it was its overturn which legalized it.

That said, it doesn't mean that alcohol should be legal. It's simply legalized poison.


There's nothing to support that interpretation when it is thoroughly analyzed and researched.

Alcohol should be banned because it causes harms to others, not necessarily because it causes harm to one's self. High fatty foods do not cause harm to anyone other than the people who are eating it. In other words, only those who eat it face life-ending harm.

Regardless of whether you think it is debatable, a well-armed citizenry makes it less likely for the government to send troops into one's home. Even the founding fathers argued this point.

I haven't contended otherwise.


Here's your problem. Alcohol kills OTHER people. It harms OTHER people. I haven't argued that government should harm other people. I'm simply talking about alcohol.

With alcohol, it is not an issue of "rights", given that the presence of one to consume alcohol often leads to the harm of other people, taking away their life and, hence, their rights.

You can't go up to someone and shoot them. Someone may feel that such is their right, but they can't do it, because it harms someone. Likewise, someone can't rape someone at will, even though they may feel they have the right to do it. Why? Someone is harmed in the process. Likewise, arguing about "rights" and drinking alcohol is tantamount to saying that one has the right to do anything, even if it harms someone else.

Actually, I despise big government. Speaking out against the dangers of alcohol and giving reasons for why it should be banned is not being supportive of big government. After all, if someone were being robbed, do you think that the person committing robbery should go scott-free? Therein lies your argument. Being against alcohol is sound and logical, and it makes sense for why it should be banned.

By your logic,everyone should have acces to nukes,grenades,fighter planes ,etc..Did the founding fathers think of that?
I'm sure the answer would be much difrent.
Besides handguns and the type that are accessible to public are basically pointless in todays world where a governement can be overtaken by terroristic actions.

[AcidSnake]

Afonega, you're a better man than me to continue debating that guy. I just can't get how someone can entertain so many contradictions in their head without feeling a deep sense of cognitive dissonance about it.

How can a person argue without restraint that alcohol kills and ignore the fact that a handgun by its very nature is designed to kill? And then easily demand that the former should heavily regulated while the latter not all? WTF!

And where are the so-called libertarians to argue against this nonsense? So let's get this straight: I can be accused of being a troll for pointing out the contradictions but this hypocrisy goes unanswered by the so-called city-data libertarians/less-government conservatives? Man, this is definitely why I don't have any respect for southern politics.

But I guess it's this same topsy-turvy counter-logic that's enabled our government to go into heavy debt while still entertaining the notion of being a world-power with military in nearly every country of the world (if you include the embassies).

Go figure.

I need a shot of the ol' Jack Daniels to stomach this contradiction. Pass me a bottle, afonega!

Originally Posted by afonega1

By your logic,everyone should have acces to nukes,grenades,fighter planes ,etc..Did the founding fathers think of that?
I'm sure the answer would be much difrent.
Besides handguns and the type that are accessible to public are basically pointless in todays world where a governement can be overtaken by terroristic actions.

[muxBuppie]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

Afonega, you're a better man than me to continue debating that guy. I just can't get how someone can entertain so many contradictions in their head without feeling a deep sense of cognitive dissonance about it.

How can a person argue without restraint that alcohol kills and ignore the fact that a handgun by its very nature is designed to kill? And then easily demand that the former should heavily regulated while the latter not all? WTF!

And where are the so-called libertarians to argue against this nonsense? So let's get this straight: I can be accused of being a troll for pointing out the contradictions but this hypocrisy goes unanswered by the so-called city-data libertarians/less-government conservatives? Man, this is definitely why I don't have any respect for southern politics.

But I guess it's this same topsy-turvy counter-logic that's enabled our government to go into heavy debt while still entertaining the notion of being a world-power with military in nearly every country of the world (if you include the embassies).

Go figure.

I need a shot of the ol' Jack Daniels to stomach this contradiction. Pass me a bottle, afonega!

Are you blind or stupid? I already addressed that guy and his nonsense on multiple pages in this thread so don't even go bring up libertarians.

//www.city-data.com/forum/21699773-post80.html
//www.city-data.com/forum/21702806-post85.html

[AcidSnake]

Where the heck are those libertarians/less-government conservatives when you need them?

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

Where the heck are those libertarians/less-government conservatives when you need them?

Trying to make a few dollars so we can pay for the needs of the less fortunate. You've got a lot of people who want their food and their cable TV.

[AcidSnake]

If they would just layoff on the whiskey and bourbon there would be more dollars in the coffers for the less fortunate, darn it!

Originally Posted by arjay57

Trying to make a few dollars so we can pay for the needs of the less fortunate. You've got a lot of people who want their food and their cable TV.

[K-SawDude]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

Where the heck are those libertarians/less-government conservatives when you need them?

That's my question every time an election rolls around and they tend to vote Republican (or not vote at all). It's odd to me how often libertarians sort of throw the "no government intervention" stance out the window whenever social issues are on the table, but then they seem uber-passionate whenever anti-tax issues pop up.

Or at least that's been my experience with most libertarians I've known, especially in Georgia.

[muxBuppie]

Originally Posted by AcidSnake

Where the heck are those libertarians/less-government conservatives when you need them?

Are you blind or stupid? I already addressed that guy and his nonsense on multiple pages in this thread so don't even go bring up libertarians.

//www.city-data.com/forum/21699773-post80.html
//www.city-data.com/forum/21702806-post85.html

[muxBuppie]

Originally Posted by K-SawDude

That's my question every time an election rolls around and they tend to vote Republican (or not vote at all). It's odd to me how often libertarians sort of throw the "no government intervention" stance out the window whenever social issues are on the table, but then they seem uber-passionate whenever anti-tax issues pop up.

Or at least that's been my experience with most libertarians I've known, especially in Georgia.

Those aren't libertarians.

[aries4118]

Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot and have lots of no-strings attached sex.