If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Archives)   Raise your glass in celebration of the 79th anniversary of the 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution   (archives.gov) divider line 114
    More: Cool, Constitution of the United States  
•       •       •

5401 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Dec 2012 at 4:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-05 08:37:51 PM
So i guess the document at the heart of the whole article was wrong in saying 1932. Went by the supposed historic doc but should have went with the modern journalist i guess. Damn you historically inaccurate historical documents!
 
2012-12-05 08:41:20 PM

onestr8: cptjeff: onestr8: 79 anniversary subby? Is you not good at the maths?

The caption got the date wrong too but you "corrected" in the wrong direction, son.

Signed December 5 1932.

"Raise your glass in celebration of the 79th 81st anniversary of the 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution" 

FTFY

Whatever source you're pulling that from is a year off. It was officially ratified Dec. 5, 1933.

Subby is right.

from the document he linked. Says "nineteen hundred and thirty two" so that would make subby's link wrong. Or did it take a year to enact?


Typo, I guess. But did you notice how all the accompanying text in Subby's article talked about 1933? And FDR, who wasn't yet President on Dec. 5, 1932? It wasn't exactly hidden, both the caption and the text mention both things. Not to mention that just about every other source on the planet says 1933, my officially printed for the US Congress (don't be too impressed, they give 'em out to visitors) copy of the Constitution says 1933... Somebody done goofed while typing that thing.
 
2012-12-05 08:53:47 PM

slackwater: By all means celebrate the use of crop land, water and other limited earth resources that could be used to feed the hungry being used to create recreational adult beverages.

Enjoy your booze after all it is just starving "brown people"

[cdn.videogum.com image 480x329]


If it makes you feel any better, I'm just drinking "brown liquor" in solidarity.
 
2012-12-05 08:57:36 PM

Carn: Actually Prohibition killed off a very large portion of our countries small breweries and led the way for the big guys to dominate. In the last 30ish years, we are finally seeing a resurgence of regional smaller breweries returning, with much higher quality beer. Back in the 19th centruy, almost any decent sized city had at least one brewery.


While I was mainly joking about "Wow, it's amazing that these guys got going so fast, it's almost like they never stopped production!", Prohibition was incredibly damaging toward American beer. It's where we developed a national taste for ice-cold beer, because that cut down on the poor flavor.

Thank the gods Jimmy Carter got us homebrewing again. Our craft beer renaissance has its roots in 1978.
 
2012-12-05 09:10:27 PM

cptjeff: onestr8: cptjeff: onestr8: 79 anniversary subby? Is you not good at the maths?

The caption got the date wrong too but you "corrected" in the wrong direction, son.

Signed December 5 1932.

"Raise your glass in celebration of the 79th 81st anniversary of the 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution" 

FTFY

Whatever source you're pulling that from is a year off. It was officially ratified Dec. 5, 1933.

Subby is right.

from the document he linked. Says "nineteen hundred and thirty two" so that would make subby's link wrong. Or did it take a year to enact?

Typo, I guess. But did you notice how all the accompanying text in Subby's article talked about 1933? And FDR, who wasn't yet President on Dec. 5, 1932? It wasn't exactly hidden, both the caption and the text mention both things. Not to mention that just about every other source on the planet says 1933, my officially printed for the US Congress (don't be too impressed, they give 'em out to visitors) copy of the Constitution says 1933... Somebody done goofed while typing that thing.


No i saw it. Two different dates. I chose to trust the supposed document. If its not an official document why even include it ya know? In this case the author was correct but used a flawed reference he didn't even read i guess. Sorry subby. My and the author's reference's bad. Shiaty reference.
 
2012-12-05 09:42:46 PM

D_Evans45: So when are we gonna do the same with pot? We're all fine with people going to bars where half the people will drive home drunk, but god forbid you smoke a joint and relax tonight.

/Doesnt smoke


Actually, tomorrow is the day pot becomes officially legal to possess in WA state.

/doesn't smoke either, though I'm 110% for repealing prohibition.
 
2012-12-05 10:03:52 PM
When asked what he would do when Prohibition was repealed, FDR replied "Have a martini!".
 
2012-12-05 10:51:18 PM

gobstopping: D_Evans45: ...

Actually, tomorrow is the day pot becomes officially legal to possess in WA state.

/doesn't smoke either, though I'm 110% for repealing prohibition.



Imagine all the impotent rage from the conservative cops who can't arrest peaceful citizens anymore!

LOL
 
2012-12-05 11:11:29 PM
chzallnighter.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-05 11:58:42 PM
*cheers*
 
2012-12-06 12:53:22 AM

Jedekai:


Would like to point something out here:

Montana placed it in their constitution that women could vote... in 1881.

Yep. We were the first.




Wrong.

"John Allen Campbell, the first Governor of the Wyoming Territory, approved the first law in United States history explicitly granting women the right to vote. The law was approved on December 10, 1869. This day was later commemorated as Wyoming Day.[78]" (Wiki)

Equality State, biatches.
Oh, and legalize it and all that...
 
2012-12-06 11:15:24 AM

wildcardjack: bmr68: SquiggsIN: bmr68: I have pictures somewhere of my grand parents and great-uncle (in his police uniform) holding up glasses toasting that moment. They were drinking at a speak easy one minute and a respectable bar the next

Does that mean pot dealers will be reputable businessmen (and women) the moment full decriminalization passes? After all they would be the coveted small-business owners the Republican party caters to, right?

If it was a legal business then I could see that happening. FYI: Marijuana was criminalized by the FDR administration in 1937

I've been told that the average illegal drug dealer couldn't run a dry cleaner shop, so you might actually destroy tens of thousands of small businesses by making it possible for proper business people to operate against them.



60 Minutes did a story about marijuana dispensaries and spotlighted one in Denver. It was a tight run operation. Looked better run than a big chain pharmacy.
 
2012-12-06 04:24:44 PM

bmr68: 60 Minutes did a story about marijuana dispensaries and spotlighted one in Denver. It was a tight run operation. Looked better run than a big chain pharmacy.



A medical cannabis collective often involves people who dont even smoke cannabis, like maintenance and security. They also need a competant lawyer, in addition to a business person to secure the proper permits.

Cant really compare that to your average street dealer
 
2012-12-06 04:35:07 PM

onestr8: cptjeff: onestr8: cptjeff: onestr8: 79 anniversary subby? Is you not good at the maths?

The caption got the date wrong too but you "corrected" in the wrong direction, son.

Signed December 5 1932.

"Raise your glass in celebration of the 79th 81st anniversary of the 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution" 

FTFY

Whatever source you're pulling that from is a year off. It was officially ratified Dec. 5, 1933.

Subby is right.

from the document he linked. Says "nineteen hundred and thirty two" so that would make subby's link wrong. Or did it take a year to enact?

Typo, I guess. But did you notice how all the accompanying text in Subby's article talked about 1933? And FDR, who wasn't yet President on Dec. 5, 1932? It wasn't exactly hidden, both the caption and the text mention both things. Not to mention that just about every other source on the planet says 1933, my officially printed for the US Congress (don't be too impressed, they give 'em out to visitors) copy of the Constitution says 1933... Somebody done goofed while typing that thing.

No i saw it. Two different dates. I chose to trust the supposed document. If its not an official document why even include it ya know? In this case the author was correct but used a flawed reference he didn't even read i guess. Sorry subby. My and the author's reference's bad. Shiaty reference.



Okay so I think I finally figured this biatch out. Apparently the congressional session began on December 5, 1932 and the amendment was signed into law, enacted, whatever on December 5, 1933. Apparenlty more of a coincidence that anything else from what I can tell.
 
Displayed 14 of 114 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report