Grade the Presidents

[TeenageRepublican]

I thought it would be kind of fun to do a report card for presidents from the past 20th century up to now. Here's mine:

John F. Kennedy: 80%
Lowered taxes, resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis without launching nuclear weapons, and tried to end segregation. A bit shaky when it comes to military plans like the Bay of Pigs invasion but overall a good president. If Democrats were more like JFK, we'd be getting crap done correctly.

George W. Bush: 80%
He has guts and has great morals no matter how unpopular they are. Held the country together during 9/11 and refuses to have a short leash tied on him by Congress. It's the other way around, in fact. He lost 20% when he wanted amnesty for illegals. But, he's been doing a great job so far.

Lyndon Johnson: 75%
Was an okay president. Some of the things he did kind of didn't make sense to me (Why would you send the National Guard to protect black students when there's local police?!) but he did a great job on holding his position on Vietnam. Lost 25% because of draft and what I said above.

Ronald Reagan: 90%
Looked up to as the Jesus of the GOP. He had guts andwas determined. Lost 20% for the amnesty for illegals but gained 5% for ending the Cold War. Gained another 5% for introducing Reaganomics which saved our country from that drunken Democrat known as Jimmy Carter. A very good president.

I'll get more later, how would you grade our 20th Century+ presidents?

[DeclinetoState]

Jimmy Carter: 10%
I know some of you would like to give him a 0. His speeches could put you to sleep, which may not have been a bad thing. His "triumphs" (Panama Canal treaties, Camp David negotiations with Sadat and Begin) have turned out to be largely mistakes. His inability to get any meaningful legislation through a Congress controlled by his own party is only redeemed by the fact that anything he proposed probably would have been disastrous if it had been enacted.

Bill Clinton: 30%
Succeeded in getting his party out of power in Congress in '94. Probably best when he practiced a form of "triangulation" and passed off Republican ideas as his own. Probably had the lowest moral standards of anyone to hold the office in some time. Started wars to distract attention from his abuses of power, and largely got away with it.

[TeenageRepublican]

Feeling merciful today Dts?

[ThomasMore]

In reverse order, x/10:

George W. Bush: 7
William J. Clinton: 3
George H.W. Bush: 5
Ronald W. Reagan: 9
James E. Carter: 1
Gerald R. Ford: 5
Richard M. Nixon: 5
Lyndon B. Johnson: 1
John F. Kennedy: 3
Dwight D. Eisenhower: 6
Harry S. Truman: 5
Franklin D. Roosevelt: 0
Herbert Hoover: 7
Calvin Coolidge: 8
Warren G. Harding: 7
Woodrow Wilson: 0

---

Most constructive list:

1. Ronald Reagan

Most destructive list:

1. Woodrow Wilson
2. Franklin Roosevelt
3. Jimmy Carter
4. Lyndon Johnson

[NRP]

What did Carter do to deserve a 1! The only good thing he ever did was have a submarine named after him.

[TeenageRepublican]

Dwight D. Eisenhower: 75%
Was probably the only Republican to gain huge popularity in the 20th century. Reagan got the second most.
However, I am still trying to figure out why such a military guy like him can agree to do the Bay of Pigs invasion. It's just odd.

[ThomasMore]

What did Carter do to deserve a 1! The only good thing he ever did was have a submarine named after him.

Jimmy the Small was a terrible President. While every decision he made was disastrous for America, what he didn't do was dishonestly attempt to overturn the entire structure of American government. Johnson was equally bad: he used Politics as Power, pursued terrible domestic policies and failed to prosecute the Vietnam War properly.

Wilson and Roosevelt completely subverted the Constitution and remade the American government in socialist forms that have not been undone to this day.

Our global interventionism began with Harvard Professor Wilson, after he promised the opposite. He also subverted the Constitution domestically.

Roosevelt used the depression to engage in a series of unconstitutional expansions and redefinitions of the federal government. Economically, it extended the depression. More significantly, it rendered much of the Constitution meaningless and created Imperial Washington, the massive, self-feeding power structure we still have.

The damage that Wilson and Roosevelt did to our nation has not been reversed to this day, and is arguably irreversable.

Ronald Reagan made the intellectual case for reversal and promised the same. He successfully ended the cold war and coalesced the conservative movement into a clear, respected ideology. He stemmed the growth of Hydra Washington, but failed to shrink it or even get the trend started towards its shrinkage.

[LivingDeadGirl]

How far back are you going...there were worse that haven't been mentioned...

[Naturalized-Texan]

Wilson and Roosevelt completely subverted the Constitution and remade the American government in socialist forms that have not been undone to this day.

Our global interventionism began with Harvard Professor Wilson, after he promised the opposite. He also subverted the Constitution domestically.

Roosevelt used the depression to engage in a series of unconstitutional expansions and redefinitions of the federal government. Economically, it extended the depression. More significantly, it rendered much of the Constitution meaningless and created Imperial Washington, the massive, self-feeding power structure we still have.

The damage that Wilson and Roosevelt did to our nation has not been reversed to this day, and is arguably irreversible.
Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were both Progressives as was Teddy Roosevelt. The progressive movement of the early 20th Century was the model for Italian Fascism and German Nazism as well as modern American liberalism according to Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. For more, see http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=57501

[TeenageRepublican]

How far back are you going...there were worse that haven't been mentioned...

I prefer the 20th century presidents because I honestly think we really can't critique presidents before that. But if you want to talk about presidents before the 20th century, then go ahead.

[Neil Peart]

George W. Bush: B+
Bill Clinton: D-
George H.W. Bush: C+
Ronald Reagan: A
Jimmy Carter: F
Gerald Ford: C-
Richard Nixon: C
Lyndon B. Johnson: F
John F. Kennedy: C+

[TeenageRepublican]

George W. Bush: B+
Bill Clinton: D
George H.W. Bush: C+
Ronald Reagan: A
Jimmy Carter: F
Gerald Ford: C-
Richard Nixon: C
Lyndon B. Johnson: F
John F. Kennedy: C+

I disagree with you on Clinton. A D?!?!? Where's the F?!?!

[Neil Peart]

I disagree with you on Clinton. A D?!?!? Where's the F?!?!OK, I'll lower it to a D-. I just don't dislike the guy as much as I do Carter and Johnson.

[Teenager]

Dwight D. Eisenhower: 75%
Was probably the only Republican to gain huge popularity in the 20th century. Reagan got the second most.
However, I am still trying to figure out why such a military guy like him can agree to do the Bay of Pigs invasion. It's just odd.

Dwight never actually fought. He went to military school and stayed behind desks his entire military career. He was brilliant when it came to paperwork and military maneuvers, but that doesn't always equal common sense... :/

[Naturalized-Texan]

In today's lexicon, Eisenhower would be considered a RINO alongside McCain.

[Elgalad]

The grades I've chosen are solely based on my opinion of the respective gentlemen's intents, effectiveness in achieving their goals, and the overall long-term effect of their Presidency on the sovereignty and prosperity of the United States.


Theodore Roosevelt: A-

William Howard Taft C+

Woodrow Wilson D+

Warren G. Harding D-

Calvin Coolidge B

Herbert Hoover C-

Franklin D. Roosevelt B+

Harry S. Truman B+

Dwight D. Eisenhower B

John F. Kennedy C+

Lyndon B. Johnson D

Richard M. Nixon D+

Gerald Ford C-

Jimmy Carter D

Ronald Reagan A-

George H.W. Bush B-

Bill Clinton D-

George W. Bush C-


I'm willing to answer questions about why I assigned these grades, but I'm not really interested in debating them.


-Elgalad

[Teenager]

What did Calvin Coolidge do to deserve a B? And why is Ronald Reagan only an A-?

Just curious. :)

[Naturalized-Texan]

Theodore Roosevelt C+

William Howard Taft C+

Woodrow Wilson D-

Warren G. Harding C

Calvin Coolidge B

Herbert Hoover C-

Franklin D. Roosevelt F in handling the Depression, B+ in handling WW II

Harry S. Truman B-

Dwight D. Eisenhower B-

John F. Kennedy C-

Lyndon B. Johnson D

Richard M. Nixon C

Gerald Ford I

Jimmy Carter F

Ronald Reagan A

George H.W. Bush C+

Bill Clinton D-

George W. Bush B

[Elgalad]

Calvin Coolidge was a strong Federalist who believed in the role of limited government. He was a strong advocate of reduced tax burdens in general and was noticeably opposed to Congressional spending increases while he was President. He supported Hoover's vision of Agriculture actually becoming profitable on its own rather than receiving subsidized support from the government.

His foreign policy exploits weren't as noteworthy, but he did continue to reject the Soviet Union as a legitimate government, maintained American influence in Central America, and refused to join Wilson's "League of Nations" because it did not serve U.S. interests.


Ronald Reagan would have actually received a B+, but I gave him a great deal of extra credit for Presiding over the complete and utter defeat of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. He was a Great man, and a good President, but I will maintain that some people give him much higher credit for what he actually accomplished As President than he deserves. He Did restore Conservatism as a powerful political force as well as American morale here and American Prestige overseas, but he was responsible for several missteps as well. All that being said though, he still ranks easily in my top 5.


-Elgalad

[TeenageRepublican]

I thought Coolidge caused the Depression.

[Elgalad]

I thought Coolidge caused the Depression.

So do some revisionist Democrats. A lot more of them used to as well, before Reagan proved once again during the 1980's that laissez faire economics do Not depress the economy by taking wealth Out of the system (putting it in the pockets of a few wealthy investors), but rather that they actually have the exact opposite effect; because when investors are free to let their money go to work, they Put it to work and ultimately Everyone benefits.

As for the Depression.. there really was no one root 'cause', anyway. It can really be described as a 'perfect economic storm' that was the result of many factors including; over-reliance on consumer Debt (especially during a deflationary cycle brought on by over investment), excessive optimism and amateur speculation in the Stock Market that rapidly skewed trends and did not reflect 'real values', hyper-inflation in European countries due to rebuilding of the damaged infrastructure from World War I as well as an incredibly excessive reparations policy demanded of Germany by the victorious Allied Powers, and last (but by no means least!) the great Dust Bowl disaster that devastated American and Canadian agriculture. There were likely many other 'contributors' to the mess, but these seem to have been the most significant.

It was not Calvin Coolidge (who Presided over the economic boom directly preceding the crash), but rather Herbert Hoover who is usually assigned the blame for the "Great Depression". Even so, he was not really responsible for creating it either. He probably Should be held responsible for not enacting policies to address the crisis quickly enough, although many of the policies he designed were later embraced by Roosevelt, but since the Depression itself was a global crisis, even that stigma shouldn't be completely laid at his feet.

FDR made it his primary campaign issue; that Hoover Was responsible for the crisis and only he (FDR) had the solutions that would end it. As disingenuous as that may be, it's still likely that in retrospect it was actually true. Hoover had lost so much political clout by the end of his first term that it is doubtful he would have had Any support from either Congress, foreign allies, and even his own cabinet! Roosevelt on the other hand, while taking far more credit than he ultimately deserved, Did manage to get us past one of the worst periods in American History by applying many of those very ideas Hoover had devised years before.

Give the credit for that to the rapid industrial buildup to World War II instead, if you like. Many modern Conservatives do. :smirky:

I'm just one that happens to believe it wasn't quite so simple.

Roosevelt was a Bastard when it came to politics, and his cabinet was an exercise in corruption, but whether it was by design or simply by luck (as a lot of folks here believe), the guy in the big chair Always gets the credit as well as the blame for what happens. And even his staunchest foes had to admit that FDR Was there when the Depression finally ended.



-Elgalad

[HooverWasRight]

I disagree with you on Clinton. A D?!?!? Where's the F?!?!

Yah, I have to hold my nose and agree. I mean as stupid as bombing bosnia from 50,000 feet sounded, it made more sense than the protracted war were in now.

Bush D+ maybe a C-

[Plain Old Dave]

Washington A (Set the standard)

Adams D+ (Alien and Sedition Acts, Quasi-War with France)

Jefferson C- (destroyed the Navy, arguably set the stage for the near-loss of the War of 1812)

Madison D+ (The War of 1812 was nearly lost on his watch)

Monroe B (Monroe Doctrine)

John Quincy Adams B+ (favored improvements, abolition)

Jackson C+/B- (Trail of Tears, spolis system)

Van Buren C (Average, at least he did no lasting harm)

Wm. Henry Harrison C

John Tyler B (Texas, established precedent for Presidential succession that held until the Constitution was amended)

James K. Polk A (Won war with Mexico, kept every campaign promise he made)

Taylor C

Fillmore D+ (Signed Fugitive Slave Act)

Pierce C

Buchanan D (Failed to suppress insurrection)

Lincoln A- (Successfully suppressed armed insurrection)

Johnson C+ (Right attitude toward Reconstruction, anemic leadership, though)

Grant D+ (One of the most corrupt Administrations in US History)

Hayes B+ ( Ended radical Reconstruction)

Garfield C

Arthur B (Civil Service reform)

Cleveland A- (Excessively harsh attitude toward Labor, all in all one of our more decent, honest Presidents though)

Benjamin Harrison C

McKinley B++ (Moved America toward our destiny as a force for positive good in the world by the Spanish-American War)

Theodore Roosevelt: B (Great White Fleet)

William Howard Taft C

Woodrow Wilson A- (War won promptly, Prohibition, however failed to make case for League of Nations to US public)

Warren G. Harding D- (Teapot Dome)

Calvin Coolidge C

Herbert Hoover C- (lack of action on Depression)

Franklin D. Roosevelt A (War won promptly, action on Depression)

Harry S. Truman A- (Integrated Armed Forces, inconclusive war)

Dwight D. Eisenhower B (foot dragging on Civil Rights, but promptly concluded war)

John F. Kennedy C+ (Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis)

Lyndon B. Johnson B+ (more Civil Rights action than any administration before or since and possibly more than all others combined; it could easily be said that LBJ and James K. Polk were the 2 most politically effective Presidents in American History)

Richard M. Nixon B++ (concluded Vietnam, assisted Israel in '73)

Gerald Ford C (See Taft)

Jimmy Carter B (one of our best intentioned Presidents, just caught in a bad international situation)

Ronald Reagan A (no real need for explaination IMHO)

George H.W. Bush B- (Inconclusive war)

Bill Clinton C- (Impeachment, myopic military policy)

George W. Bush B+ (Good GWOT strategy, some domestic issues)

To sum up:

A Listers:

Washington, James K. Polk, Lincoln, Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Ronald Reagan

B Listers:

Monroe, John Quincy Adams, John Tyler, Hayes, Arthur, McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush

[Neil Peart]

Lyndon B. Johnson B (more Civil Rights action than any administration before or since and possibly more than all others combined; it could easily be said that LBJ and James K. Polk were the 2 most politically effective Presidents in American History)The only thing LBJ was effective at was raping us taxpayers in the asshole with his "Great Society" bullshit.

[Neil Peart]

Woodrow Wilson A- (War won promptly, Prohibition, however failed to make case for League of Nations to US public)Probition was a failure by every standard, because it actually resulted in alcohol consumption going UP. It also resulted in the creation of organized crime, which was rarely a problem before then. Violent crime increased.

Prohibition resulted in the murder rate increasing by 54 percent. After Prohibition was repealed, the murder rate fell for 11 years straight. Many people were stumbling on the street visibly drunk because the law prevented people from taking the alcohol they purchased home, so they had to consume it at the place they purchased it. After the repeal of Prohibition, these stumbling drunkards disappeared from the streets almost overnight.

"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies by their intentions rather than their results." - Milton Friedman

[Plain Old Dave]

Prohibition was the greatest experiment in righteousness in the history of These States.

"Beer and liquor have their place- in Hell!"

"The saloon is the sum of all villainies. It is worse than war or pestilence. It is the crime of crimes. It is parent of crimes and the mother of sins. It is the appalling source of misery and crime in the land and the principal cause of crime. It is the source of three-fourths of the taxes to support that crime. And to license such an incarnate fiend of hell is the dirtiest, low-down, damnable business on top of this old earth. There is nothing to be compared to it."

-Billy Sunday
(second quote from http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Printed%20Sermons/Billy%20Sunday/curse_of_liquor_billy_sunday.htm )

[ThomasMore]

As an exercise in "imposed righteousness," prohibition created a culture of utter disrespect for the law -- the public wasn't willing to sit for a dry nation, so we became a nation of scofflaws. And in so doing, we enriched rumrunners and built organized crime. Al Capone and the Kennedy family (papa Joe became wealthy as a rumrunner) are just two results of this.

While Billy Sunday might have had a strong opinion about any alcohol, the Bible does not speak so harshly. The most obvious reference is the wedding where Jesus turned water into wine, but there are many other references in the Bible where wine is spoken of positively. Drunkenness is always condemned in the Bible; not so the moderate consumption of wine.

[Plain Old Dave]

But Jesus turned water into wine at a wedding.



Already covered here:

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=679321#post679321

The 'wine' referred to at Cana was a refreshing grape beverage with no alcoholic content. Diffrentiating between rotted grapes adn grape juice is a 20th century phenominon (sp?); before WW2, ALL grape juice, fermented or no, was called 'wine'.

[Neil Peart]

Prohibition was the greatest experiment in righteousness in the history of These States.

"Beer and liquor have their place- in Hell!"

"The saloon is the sum of all villainies. It is worse than war or pestilence. It is the crime of crimes. It is parent of crimes and the mother of sins. It is the appalling source of misery and crime in the land and the principal cause of crime. It is the source of three-fourths of the taxes to support that crime. And to license such an incarnate fiend of hell is the dirtiest, low-down, damnable business on top of this old earth. There is nothing to be compared to it."

-Billy Sunday
(second quote from http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Printed%20Sermons/Billy%20Sunday/curse_of_liquor_billy_sunday.htm )So you excuse something that CREATED organized crime in the US? You've got issues.

Let me restate what I said. There was no organized crime before Prohibition. Prohibition CREATED organized crime.

You know what, since you say alcohol is bad, let's ban everything that's considered bad. Let's ban fattening foods because they cause obesity and shortened lifespans, and throw people in jail if they order a Big Mac. Let's ban the use of profanity because it offends people, and throw people in jail for saying "shit" or "fück." Let's ban premarital sex because it perverts God's intent for sex, and throw people in jail in they're caught doing the nasty and can't produce a marriage license. What's that, you say? Can't work, because it wouldn't really stop anybody from doing anything, and would have unintended consequences? Well, guess what. Prohibition didn't stop people from drinking, and in fact, ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION INCREASED DURING PROHIBITION. Based on that fact alone, Prohibition earns the title of miserable failure. Social policies should be judged based on whether or not they work(ed), not whether they make those who implement them feel righteous.

[TeenageRepublican]

Already covered here:

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=679321#post679321

The 'wine' referred to at Cana was a refreshing grape beverage with no alcoholic content. Diffrentiating between rotted grapes adn grape juice is a 20th century phenominon (sp?); before WW2, ALL grape juice, fermented or no, was called 'wine'.

So? Where does it say in the Bible to not drink liquor? The Bible forbids addictions because addictions put the addiction in as a sort of a replacement God. That's what God dislikes.
I drink liquor occasionally (with parent supervision). I like wine, it has a smooth flavor. I only do this once or twice every month or so. Am I sinning by doing that?

[ThomasMore]

Already covered here:

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=679321#post679321

The 'wine' referred to at Cana was a refreshing grape beverage with no alcoholic content. Diffrentiating between rotted grapes adn grape juice is a 20th century phenominon (sp?); before WW2, ALL grape juice, fermented or no, was called 'wine'.

I can't speak to your history of English usage predating World War II, but:

You are correct that "wine" in the Bible refers both to the alcoholic and the nonalcoholic varieties. In many cases, the distinction is made clear by the language. For example, the Hebrew word "tiyrowsh" means grape juice; "yayin" means fermented wine, and "shekar" refers to strong drink. Similarly, surrounding language can make the distinction explicit or easily inferred, e.g., "new wine" v. "old wine." In some cases, the Bible isn't clear whether the wine referred to has alcoholic content or not. (There is one Tanakh passage which suggests that tiyrowsh, "new wine," might still have some alcoholic content: Hosea 4:11 (http://yltbible.com/hosea/4.htm).)

The passage of Jesus turning water into wine at the wedding in Cana does not employ clear word-usages, but the wedding director's surprised comment strongly suggests that the wine was fermented:

When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from...the headwaiter called the bridegroom, and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” John 2:9-10 (http://yltbible.com/john/2.htm).

The director's comment implies that after people have drunk some wine, their sense of taste would not be as acute -- which is an effect of alcohol. If this was "grape Fanta," the wedding director's comment would not make much sense.

Your assertion that Jesus was a Nazarite who would not drink wine with alcoholic content, therefore He must have only made grape juice, assumes several things not stated in the Bible. Nothing in the Bible states that Jesus had taken Nazarite vows. Jesus was known as a Nazarene because He had spent His youth in Nazareth (http://yltbible.com/matthew/2.htm). This differs from undertaking Nazarite vows. Furthermore, even if Jesus did not drink alcoholic wine Himself, that would not necessarily have prevented him from making it for the wedding celebration, as long as it did not induce the wedding guests to sin.

For argument's sake, let's accept your premises, expressed and implied, and your conclusion:

(i) Jesus was a Nazarite (you expressed this),

(ii) by being a Nazarite, He was prohibited from drinking fermented wine (expressed), and

(iii) He would not make something and offer it to others that He would not consume Himself (not expressed, but implied).

Therefore he did not make fermented wine.

If all of these were true, then Jesus would also have violated the Nazarite vow by making unfermented grape juice.

The Nazarite vow appears at the time of Moses, in Numbers 6:

And Jehovah speaketh unto Moses, saying, 'Speak unto the sons of Israel, and thou hast said unto them, When a man or woman doeth singularly, by vowing a vow of a Nazarite, to be separate to Jehovah; from wine and strong drink he doth keep separate; vinegar of wine, and vinegar of strong drink he doth not drink, and any juice of grapes he doth not drink, and grapes moist or dry he doth not eat; all days of his separation, of anything which is made of the wine-vine, from kernels even unto husk, he doth not eat.

'All days of the vow of his separation a razor doth not pass over his head; till the fulness of the days which he doth separate to Jehovah he is holy; grown up hath the upper part of the hair of his head.

All days of his keeping separate to Jehovah, near a dead person he doth not go; for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister -- he is not unclean for them at their death, for the separation of his God is on his head; Numbers 6:1-7 (http://yltbible.com/numbers/6.htm)

Nazarites pledge not to eat or drink ANY product of the grape vine.

Jesus could not possibly have taken Nazarite vows. First, Paul presents evidence that Jesus was probably not a Nazarite:

In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her; 1 Corinthians 11:13-15 (http://yltbible.com/1_corinthians/11.htm)

The Nazarite vow includes not cutting one's hair (note the Numbers reference above). It is doubtful that if Jesus really did have long hair, Paul would call this a dishonor, and that Paul's statement would become scriptural. Recall that many who knew Jesus were still alive when these books were still being compiled.

Paul's statement merely suggests the idea that Jesus was not a Nazarite. But Jesus's statements and actions at the Last Supper drive home conclusive proof that neither Jesus nor His disciples took Nazarite vows:

And while they were eating, Jesus having taken the bread, and having blessed, did brake, and was giving to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body;' and having taken the cup, and having given thanks, he gave to them, saying, 'Drink ye of it -- all; for this is my blood of the new covenant, that for many is being poured out -- to remission of sins; and I say to you, that I may not drink henceforth on this produce of the vine, till that day when I may drink it with you new in the reign of my Father.' Matthew 26:26-29. (http://yltbible.com/matthew/26.htm)

Jesus is using wine, or grape juice, to establish His new covenant. He is commanding His disciples to drink it. He says that starting at that minute, He will abstain until He can drink with them in the Father's reign. If Jesus was a Nazarite, He would not have been using wine or grape juice for the Last Supper.

The Bible is not clear whether the wine that Jesus made at the wedding was grape juice, or fermented wine. The Bible is not clear that drinking fermented wine in moderation is sinful, except for specific enumerated circumstances. If God intended a general prohibition on drinking fermented wine, He would have made sure that the Scriptures clearly expressed that point.

The Bible is clear that we are expected to be moderate in all things, and not to set out stumbling-blocks for our neighbors. The Bible is also clear in the narrower case that drunkenness and other overindulgences are sins.

While Billy Sunday might have set further limits for himself, and exhorted his listeners to do the same, this is a limit the Bible does not set.

[ThomasMore]

So you excuse something that CREATED organized crime in the US? You've got issues.

Let me restate what I said. There was no organized crime before Prohibition. Prohibition CREATED organized crime.

You know what, since you say alcohol is bad, let's ban everything that's considered bad. Let's ban fattening foods because they cause obesity and shortened lifespans, and throw people in jail if they order a Big Mac. Let's ban the use of profanity because it offends people, and throw people in jail for saying "shit" or "fück." Let's ban premarital sex because it perverts God's intent for sex, and throw people in jail in they're caught doing the nasty and can't produce a marriage license. What's that, you say? Can't work, because it wouldn't really stop anybody from doing anything, and would have unintended consequences? Well, guess what. Prohibition didn't stop people from drinking, and in fact, ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION INCREASED DURING PROHIBITION. Based on that fact alone, Prohibition earns the title of miserable failure. Social policies should be judged based on whether or not they work(ed), not whether they make those who implement them feel righteous.

Neil, there has ALWAYS been organized crime -- there was organized crime 3,000 years ago. The Sicilian Mafia dates from the mid-19th Century during the collapse of Italian government. The American la Cosa Nostra dates from the late 19th Century, as Italian emigrants settled in America.

Prohibition took an activity which most people engaged in and made it criminal. As a result, literally millions of people flouted the law. Total alcohol consumption undoubtedly dropped (some people obeyed the law, supplies were harder to come by, and the costs were higher), but the trouble it caused certainly increased. When normal supply chains were shut down, the preexisting criminal enterprises moved in, profiting handsomely and growing. Supplying alcohol to Americans financed their other illegal operations, resulting in bolder, more ruthless organized criminal enterprises.

---

Dave's argument isn't that alcohol consumption isn't common. He is arguing that it violates Biblical teaching. That is where he and I respectfully disagree -- but the answer to that can only be found in the Bible.

[Neil Peart]

Neil, there has ALWAYS been organized crime -- there was organized crime 3,000 years ago. The Sicilian Mafia dates from the mid-19th Century during the collapse of Italian government. The American la Cosa Nostra dates from the late 19th Century, as Italian emigrants settled in America.

Prohibition took an activity which most people engaged in and made it criminal. As a result, literally millions of people flouted the law -- total alcohol consumption undoubtedly dropped (some people obeyed the law, supplies were harder to come by, and the costs were higher), but the trouble it caused certainly increased. When normal supply chains were shut down, the preexisting criminal enterprises moved in, profiting handsomely and growing. Supplying alcohol to Americans financed their other illegal operations, resulting in bolder, more ruthless organized criminal enterprises.Thanks for clarifying. Either way, Prohibition still caused more problems than it solved (because it didn't solve anything).