Hardly. I was in my teens during most of LITB’s run and was well aware it had very little in common with the real world. It’s mostly victims of history revisionism such as yourself who seem to think it was a documentary.
Full stop, we already found that you continue to think that the counterculture = all other liberal movements. Or that all liberals supported them, as digs and many others showed not every liberal acted like that and you only are just nut picking.
You are indeed deluded.
who can make a gun out of a paper to— umm, nevermind
And then she said “Ward, you were pretty hard on the beaver last night”. It was straight to Hell from there.
Nope. The counterculture revolution was the catalyst. All the other societal ills we’re plagued with currently grew out of it. I’ve often suspected many of the counterculture crowd would have bailed from the movement themselves if they’d had a crystal ball to see what the eventual outcome would be.
And this answer also shows that you are only a wilful ignorant, we already showed evidence that the counterculture died in the 70’s and most liberals did not follow them.
And as usual you ignore that many conservatives are convinced that the war on drugs was a big mistake and curiously many democratic administrations showed that they were more draconian against drugs.
That doesn’t include fucking in the mud, does it? For the love of god man, leave us our fucking in the mud!
Sigh. Nobody, including me, said they weren’t. What I did say - for the benefit of those who are severely challenged in reading comprehension - is that they are a monumentally stupid idea. And Hillary’s advocating it is a monumentally stupid idea.
Now, do I need to type that any s-l-o-w-e-r so you can follow that thought?
Who even uses a phrase like “The Counterculture Revolution” with a straight face?
I’m picturing an episode of Route 66 where the “square” with the tweed jacket and pipe (not an artist, and certainly not starving) is pontificating about “Young People Of Today” while a beatnik with bongos and a bad acid trip shouts a poem about “The Running-Dog Lackeys of Capitalism, maaaan…”.
ETA: Guess I’m just one of those liberals “who treat drug use as cool and inside and people who don’t as uptight squares who are out of it” (More lingo from SA, to prove he’s “with it, Daddy-o”)
Copacetic cat with reet pleat and a drape shape! Boodly-acky-sacky, want some seafood, Mama!
She’s advocating that gun companies not have special protection. Why do you think they are delicate flowers who need special government protection?
Aww, the poor widdle gun companies can’t stand on their own two feet and need government pwotection from the mean big bad America people… those poor widdle delicate flowers.
What happened to conservatives? Who would have ever thought they would advocate for special types of government protection only for certain types of companies?
I don’t think gun companies should get special protection, but first I’d have to know exactly what we’re talking about here. Is it actually special protection, or is it “special tax breaks” like oil companies supposedly get but are actually just regular old tax breaks that Democrats think they don’t deserve?
It’s actual special protection just for gun companies.
Links here (copy and paste – for some reason the link button isn’t working for me):
That law ought to be perfect for this thread – the government getting involved when totally unnecessary to provide special legal protection for a valued special interest.
Ehhhhh, it looks like the judicial branch was interpreting existing law in an unintended way. What those lawsuits seemed to be saying is that if a gun is used in a murder, then the gun company is at fault. The end result would be that gun manufacturers would have to go out of business or at least exit the civilian market entirely.
The law is narrowly tailored to only protect gun companies from activist judges that would basically make sales of guns to civilians illegal.
This law is only 10 years old. If such lawsuits were going to put gun companies out of business, then why hadn’t they in the 20th century? Allowing the lawsuits to proceed doesn’t mean that the plaintiff is guaranteed to win. It just means that gun companies are treated like any other companies – and why shouldn’t they be?
I’d note that a few years before, Eli Lilly had received special protection from autism lawsuits. For good reason.
Because like the tobacco lawsuits in the 90s, it hadn’t been attempted successfully. Once the precedent is established that gun makers can be sued for the failings of individual gun owners(and police and the military for that matter), then you’ve banned guns through the backdoor.