Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The purpose of this thread is NOT politics, health care or anger. The purpose of this thread is to explore a complicated idea. It struck me today, as I was reading some history about America, that I really do not know how prohibition, as practiced in the 1920's or so, was similar to Obamacare today. I can think of lots of differences, but I think there may be a lot of similarities. For example, both prohibition and Obamacare are examples of rather unpopular laws. Other than that, I am a little stumped. What do you think of this idea?
What I don't want to do is debate the elements of Obamacare...there are plenty of places for people to do that. What I hope to accomplish is a better understanding of the similarities between Obamacare and prohibition.
Last edited by Dan-Ashley; 12-05-2013 at 02:45 PM..
Reason: Spelling
Rational thought is taking a conclusion from the evidence, not making the assumption a conclusion is true and the supporting evidence is just not being seen. It's backwards of how things should go.
You may be onto something here, although I'm not sure if you can keep this subject from becoming political.
One similarity that I see is that both laws were enacted by a "moral majority" which believed that they knew what was best for the true majority.
It was drafted and passed by a real majority of politicians elected by the majority of the people.
This is just a synonym for the "silent majority" crap that a hypothetical mass of people agree with a person's position...they just aren't doing anything about it. If this lurking majority you imagine exists there is a way it can change the laws. It did so for prohibition and it can for the ACA.
Oh, and "moral majority" was tried by Jerry Falwell to bring fundamentalist Christianity into politics and been absorbed into the religious right...a group that has staunchly opposed the ACA (and homosexual rights). Recasting that group to switch it's political position is very disingenuous at best.
Is there any statement supporting linking the two that isn't a fallacy? Here's a list to help out...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
