Those humorous Founders.

[doucanoe]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Not necessarily "enforced" as simply what was expected behaviour, yet I am willing to bet that there were proportionally as many "out of wedlock" babies then as now.

One of the things that a study of genealogy will show you is that the more things change the more they stay the same.

I think you right there. I also believe that you comment "Not necessarily "enforced" as simply what was expected behaviour" is where we have strayed badly. It's hard to have a sense of expected behavior when nothing is expected and all behavior is measured by degree.

[Fast_Eddie]

Shoot, Pete. If eveyone minds their own business, how are you going to legislate morality and shut down the shops selling porn? If government stays out of our lives, people might smoke pot, hire hookers and decide they're athiests. That won't do.

[piece-itpete]

Local, Eddie, local. Not handed down from on high. Hence the saying

There's some intrigue and scandal behind this penny:

"The contract was awarded to Jarvis who had given a $10,000 bribe to William Durer, the head of the Treasury Board. Jarvis was required to produce some three hundred tons of Fugio cents. He was able to obtain about thirty tons of copper from the government to begin coining with the proviso he would pay the government for the copper through his coining operation. Jarvis had Abel Buell make the Fugio dies. He then put his father-in-law, Samuel Broome, in charge of the minting operations and went to Europe in search of copper and assistance. Jarvis sought the assistance of Matthew Boulton, owner of the Soho Mint in Birmingham, and others, but without cash up front, Jarvis was unsuccessful. Meanwhile, Broome used much of the federal copper to mint about three and a half million 1787 Connecticut coppers, which were lighter in weight and thus more profitable than the Fugio's. In the end Broome made only about 400,000 Fugio cents (about four tons out of the 300 tons of coppers they had been contracted to produce) which were sent to the U.S. Treasury on May 21, 1788. "

http://www.coins.nd.edu/ColCoin/ColC...gio.intro.html

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Local, Eddie, local.

Got it. Freedom means you're free. Unless your neighbors don't want you to be. So that whole slavery thing didn't work out the way it should have. Follow that line of logic and it was just fine for the folks in Berkeley to kick the Marine recruiters out of town. You would call me a liberal, but when I lived there I was downright conservative. Guess it would be okay for cities to outlaw guns too.

What do you do when every city, town and county outlaws something that should be legal? Or a city with a lot of Muslims legislates daily prayer to Allah? Or is it only okay to mandate prayer when it’s Christian prayer, like in the public schools?

Hey, maybe Berkeley can pass a law welcoming illegals to their town. Local, Pete, local.

[piece-itpete]

I respectfully mention that perhaps you need to learn what it was exactly the revolutionaries fought for. Sure wasn't federally protected porn shops in every city.

Pete

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I respectfully mention that perhaps you need to learn what it was exactly the revolutionaries fought for. Sure wasn't federally protected porn shops in every city.

Pete

Was it federally protected persecution of homosexuals? Man, freedom is a pain when *everyone* gets it. Maybe we should just give the freedom to the "right" people. Come on Pete, wink, wink. You know who I mean.

[piece-itpete]

What you think is right, or me? Why don't we have hardcore porn on broadcast TV?

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

What you think is right, or me? Why don't we have hardcore porn on broadcast TV?

Pete

Because that evil FCC has banned it. Federal busybodies.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

What you think is right, or me? Why don't we have hardcore porn on broadcast TV?

Pete

That's actually a really good question. What gives the government the right to license the air? If I have money, want to build a transmitter and do whatever I like with it, what business of the government's is it?

I'm actually not joking about that- it's a really good question. I'm not saying I'm in favor of porn on broadcast TV, but the case has been made that the cable guys have an unfair advantage because they can put what they like on TV. The argument has always been that people have to pay for those channels, but the over the air stuff is free. Really? Where are they giving those TVs away? And why is basic cable subject to the same rules? We pay for that.

It's kind of a mess and hodge podge of laws that really shows the messed up ideas people in this country have about this kind of material. Everyone says it's terrible, but the Playboy channel isn't going out of business, just the newspapers.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Interesting, 13 links in the chain.

Our own Sherlock Holmes. That detail passed me by.

I assume you would prefer being compared to Holmes than to Monk, although I kind of prefer Monk - more humor.

Regards,

D-Ray