Why didn't Reagan threaten to veto ? Reagan wasn't a community organizer, he was a leader who was able to deal with both sides of the aisle. Reagan didn't threaten vetoing bills that he didn't like or whined and cried saying he had a pen and a phone. Reagan didn't use executive orders to run the country. The Reagan administration wasn't a totalitarian administration where the Constitution was replaced with political correctness. Reagan was actually able to comprehend the Constitution, Congress legislated and the Executive branch enforced the legislation passed by Congress. Works pretty well when one follows the Constitution.
So Reagan supported a "left wing bill" and made no attempt to have the left wing parts of it removed? So why doesn't that make him left wing? BTW, are you admitting you lied when you claimed 130 Republicans voted against the bill?
Why would you where a mask under your nose? And the reason why his face isn't all that distinguishable is because he's facing the threat. His scarf is facing away from his throat. And yes, looking at it again that IS his actual chin. Ever seen Curt Douglas? For once in your life think logically for a minute. On second thought just think. Why in the world would they advertise being the bad guy? Do you really think they would advertise an illegal act? C'mon man! That's not how forums work. You make the claims and you provide the evidence to back it up.
Rather obvious it would have a different shade due to the nose. Dude that advertisement is ancient, in a time where gunning down indians was meh, slaver perfectly fine. If you don't know how google works, and demand everything, even the most simplest things, must be totally linked, quoted, highlighted,.. than you're just being childish, and I aint doing that. Deal with it.
Wait, what? He doesn't have a mask. First of all that advertisement is at the most from 1920. A time where Indians and slavery was long gone. Secondly even if you're right they would still portray him as a good guy and with no mask. Sheesh!!! The one making the claim provide the evidence, unless you don't have any. All I ask are the percentages.
FFS... bandana over the nose gives the nose a shade a, and below that it's just rather 1 big sheet oh an other shade. Or do I have to explain how the shadow of the sun etc have it's effect on things? You need a link for that? Oh superb. At the hight of the Jim Crow laws. Must have been amazingly PR correct towards black people and Indians. In no way did this have it's effect on adds. This forum isn't a school. I aint your teacher. If you enter a discussion, than you need some general knowledge about it or either take some effort to brush it up. When you flat out refuse to google something simple, than it's just your own problem.
Look, blow up the image as much you want a focus on the face. He's not wearing a mask. That shadow just under his nose is just that. He has a chin like Kirk Douglas and back then that's how they portray manly men. They aren't Indians nor blacks. You can plainly see the cowboy hat on one of them. They're either cattle rustlers or some other type of raiders. Plus you never answered my question. Who would be dumb enough back then to advertise that you can a bad guy just like this with our product? You seriously need a lesson in history and common sense. Since you won't give it to prove your point I decided to go do it myself. As it turned out the crime rate barely doubled from 5.3 murders per 100,000 to 10 per 100,00 thousand. Not much compared to 30 per 100,000. http://tdl.org/txlor-dspace/bitstream/handle/2249.3/276/04_prohib_crim.htm Also as a side note a 13% increase isn't much either when you consider that you increase your chances of dying from a motorcycle by 17% compared to a car.
Nobody got a chin having a point like that. It looks totally unhuman-like. Never said there were. You however claim they were herding cattle away. That aint in the picture. Well I did say that during them days they sure had a different kind of general accepted opinion about black and Indians than we got now. And you twist that in, they aint in the picture, ignoring my point that they really weren't thinking that straight. Are you for real? People today would go out of their mind if the crime rate almost doubled, placing politicians and the police under tremendous pressure to curve that back. Also,.. see you were just being incredible lazy. And that aint my problem you refuse to take some small effort using google.
Actually its more rounded but still jutted out. Again, look at photos of Kirk Douglas, he has a chin similar to the picture. I wasn't the one who originally said and I gave another option. You was the one going off on some tangent about how racist the ad is. If that was you're original point that still doesn't qualify. You don't sell products back then by advertising that you can be the bad guy. Remember they had a high moral standard then. If it was 20 to 40 murders per 100,000 then you would have a point. However in the grand scheme of things going from 5 to 10 isn't much. I'm not denying it doubled, I'm just saying that doubling wasn't all that horrific.
Those are all cowboys he's shooting. Note the hats. That's a sod buster defending his claim from open range thugs, a common theme from old west tales.
Sadly, unless you become a manufacturer or dealer of Class lll firearms, there is no licence for Class lll, only a permission that costs you a $ 200 Tax stamp for each purchase of a Class lll item.
Actually that's not quite true. The gun control measures were directed against a specific targeted group, who were already noted to be involved in crime. You might want to read the Tombstone ordinances of which there were two and you'll see there was a lot of leeway. It was the same in Dodge City and the anti-gun ordinance only applied to a specific part of town.
Yes, I know. Just using common terms. Now a billet if steel, lathe and mill and I can twist one out on my own.
