Progress Somerset - Wet Initiative Underway

Cantwait wrote:

I can't wait to get one of those good jobs waiting tables for the buckeyes as the get drunk and insult the locals. It is going to be great !!!!

I want to inform you that there are MANY people who would LOVE to have one of those jobs. Before you begin to disrespect people who work for these restaurants you might want to do a little research. The tips alone in higher end restaurants are more than many make in this area.

Now, to address your one sided opinion concerning the creation of jobs if this passes, consider this. While entertainment and good food is not the TOP CONSIDERATION to big business, it is a consideration! Somerset has missed out on countless opportunities for manufacturing jobs and the such simply because Presidents and CEO's want to live and work in an area where they can entertain clients, business partners, family, and friends. So if this passes and the restaurants, that you apparently like to make fun of, build here, it is a start toward a new direction for economical progress in this area. Jobs will follow!

NO, not at a cost of lives. If you believe statistical information, DUI's and related accidents are lower in wet areas. No, not at a cost of our sou;s either. There is plenty of scripture that supports the fact that Drinking in itself is not a sin.

NAF RACSAN wrote:

<quoted text>
You are right about alcohol "abuse", EVERYBODY AGREES WITH THAT! However, my entire post was dispelling any argument that comes from the so called religious concerning drinking being a sin. The Bible acknowledges that alcohol in moderation is beneficial. So does science! Also, you can ignore the statistics and facts concerning economic growth and job creation, due to being "WET", until doomsday but the facts will still remain! Ignoring statistics and facts is simply ignorance and hypocritical! You simply can not say that you want less DUI's and related accidents and still support a "DRY" county when statics prove that being "WET" reduces it.

Church goers invent all kinds of reasons to want to keep Somerset dry. What they won't come out and say (maybe because no one searches their own heart enough to know the truth) is that the real issue is about control. I've been a Christian for about 25 years, now, and for as long as I can remember the leadership's biggest fear has been loosing control over society and politics. The truth is, that if Christianity is really the highest and best way,(it is) you won't have to force your faith on anyone by using the law, being manipulative, or threatening people with Hell. All you have to do is let your light shine and others will be drawn to it. Jesus never threatened sinners with Hell, but he did threaten the religious leaders, and they hated Him because He didn't keep all their rules. Just like Christians of our day, they had a hard time comprehending what it meant to not be "under law". So,the real question, in my opinion, is: do we have to find ways to force our morals on society, or can we trust God to turn the hearts of men to Himself? Where is your faith, Church? Really?

Thats Right wrote:

<quoted text>Church goers invent all kinds of reasons to want to keep Somerset dry. What they won't come out and say (maybe because no one searches their own heart enough to know the truth) is that the real issue is about control. I've been a Christian for about 25 years, now, and for as long as I can remember the leadership's biggest fear has been loosing control over society and politics. The truth is, that if Christianity is really the highest and best way,(it is) you won't have to force your faith on anyone by using the law, being manipulative, or threatening people with Hell. All you have to do is let your light shine and others will be drawn to it. Jesus never threatened sinners with Hell, but he did threaten the religious leaders, and they hated Him because He didn't keep all their rules. Just like Christians of our day, they had a hard time comprehending what it meant to not be "under law". So,the real question, in my opinion, is: do we have to find ways to force our morals on society, or can we trust God to turn the hearts of men to Himself? Where is your faith, Church? Really?

Amen. I will vote dry, but agree that people should let God guide not just vote, but be a force in their life. Wet dry is only a social issue. Their personal salvation is what is important.

This shouldn't be a religious issue but if you truly believe in God and in his word you would naturally vote wet. Scripture supports this! However, if you simply follow the will of others who mislead and misinform their congregations you are a mindless hypocrite. If it weren't so tragic it would be laughable to read all these hypocritical postings of "SO CALLED" Christians. VOTE WET SOMERSET!

Soccer Granny wrote:

<quoted text>
Amen. I will vote dry, but agree that people should let God guide not just vote, but be a force in their life. Wet dry is only a social issue. Their personal salvation is what is important.

If you were actually honest about that, you wouldn't be voting against it. If you were going to abstain, I'd accept your argument.

Properly translated, your comment is, "Everyone should make thier own choice, but I'm going to vote against their ability to chose anything."

NAF RACSAN wrote:

This shouldn't be a religious issue

That's pretty much my point, it just took me a little longer to get there than it took you. Like it or not, though, it is a religious issue, because the main opposition to alcohol sales is religion. So, if you want to convince people to vote wet, you're gonna have to convince them that the Bible isn't against alcohol, and that it's pro freedom. And you'll have to use the Bible itself to do that.

Thats Right wrote:

<quoted text>That's pretty much my point, it just took me a little longer to get there than it took you. Like it or not, though, it is a religious issue, because the main opposition to alcohol sales is religion. So, if you want to convince people to vote wet, you're gonna have to convince them that the Bible isn't against alcohol, and that it's pro freedom. And you'll have to use the Bible itself to do that.

That is why I posted this. It is straight from the Bible!

The religious arguments has holes throughout. It makes those who make these statements appear ignorant. For instance: they hate drunk driving and related accidents so they insist on this area staying dry. On this point they simply ignore all of the evidence and factual information that proves less DUI's and related accidents in wet areas. They supposedly hate bootleggers but they refuse to do anything to gain control of alcohol sales in this area. Making alcohol legal to purchase in this area would make prices so low the bootleggers simply couldn't compete! They say that the Bible is against drinking alcohol, however, they seem to ignore the verses (John 2:1-25) where Jesus turns water into wine. One of the greatest Biblical proofs that drinking alcohol is not a sin in God's eyes is the fact that Christians drink wine showing Christ died for our sins. God said that what gives us life is our blood. Wine is fermented grape juice which is active or "living" just as our blood.
The Apostle Paul did not think drinking wine was a sin. He tells Timothy, who was having stomach trouble, that he should drink a little wine for his stomach's sake.
"No longer drink only water, but use a little WINE for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities." (1Timothy 5:23)
Based on the Bible, drinking alcohol is of itself not a sin or harmful. Paul told Timothy to drink a little wine to benefit his health. The latest scientific findings show drinking moderately is helpful for our heart and lowers cholesterol and high blood pressure.
Of course, the Bible does condemn drunkenness. Drunkenness is a sin! Lot, Abraham's nephew, got drunk after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and had sex with his daughters (see this site's article on the subject). Titus 1:7 states that a minister of God should not be given to wine or an alcoholic. Drunkenness is clearly a sin (1Timothy 3:8).
The Apostle Paul warns us that we should not be drunk with wine, wherein is excess (Ephesians 5:18).
As long as we drink moderately, the Bible states it is good for us, but drunkenness or alcoholism is definitely a sin and not to be a part of a Christian's life. Everyone who reads the word does not receive the same message. That is what is so great about the Bible. I love Jesus and believe his word! Simple as that. However, many manipulate his word and it's meanings to suppress entire communities into living in accordance to their own personal views, often political. The problem is that there are multitudes of people out there that do not have opinions of their own. They want a leader to tell them what to do. They thrive on living like mindless robots instead of doing research to get the truth and forming their own opinions. The people who do this are people who love freedom! All of this is why religion has nothing to do with this issue. PEOPLE WAKE UP AND REVIEW THE FACTS AND STATISTICS! The intelligible choice here is to vote wet.

Go Wet Somerset!!!

Knowitall9 wrote:

<quoted text>In reality , most churches should be reviewed as to their tax exempt status - What is the defining point granting t-e status ?- They take in money , pay bills , buy preachers vehicles , eat out on credit cards , increase property values on their buildings , send money to other countries , and may even have an attorney getting paid for legal services - Maybe they need to get back to preaching about the end times and let folks decide their own futures or status in the hereafter - Every time I hear a preacher talk about the alcohol vote , and ignore the rampant drug problem , I see multiple visions of Jim Jones , recruiting a new flock -

No one is ignoring that. Where you at the awareness march last Sunday? Oh wait, you would have to be aware. Whoops, sorry. I know, since there has to be a vote on a ballot for "SOME" to be aware, why don't you petition for meth to be legal? Or better yet, hire more IRS agents to shut down organizations that actually help society. I know, why don't you start a "Peoples castapo" group and go after anyone that opposes what you believe is right?

WellOkThen wrote:

<quoted text>
No one is ignoring that. Where you at the awareness march last Sunday? Oh wait, you would have to be aware. Whoops, sorry. I know, since there has to be a vote on a ballot for "SOME" to be aware, why don't you petition for meth to be legal? Or better yet, hire more IRS agents to shut down organizations that actually help society. I know, why don't you start a "Peoples castapo" group and go after anyone that opposes what you believe is right?

First: Alcohol is a legal substance in the US. Meth is not. All Progress Somerset wants is for the people of Somerset to vote on allowing a legal commodity to be sold in their community.

Second: When a religious organization is granted tax exempt status it is with the understanding -- a promise really -- that their activities will be religious in nature -- not political. When they go back on that "promise" then they should be held accountable. Actually, some churches have chosen to forego their tax exempt status so that they can freely conduct activities that are more political in nature. I have great respect for these institutions because they put their principles before money.
Third: The word is "Gestapo" not "castapo." It is an abbreviation for Geheime Staatspolizei, which means "Secret State Police" in German. The role of the Gestapo was to safeguard an oppressive regime which had effectively removed the rule of law from the people under the premise that they knew what was best for German society.

I find it interesting that the dry supporters, are not only offended by the fact that some would want to open our doors to alcohol sales, but also by the very idea of putting the issue on the ballot. This is one of our most basic freedoms and anyone who would oppose our right to decide these types of issues should be viewed with skepticism and concern.

Tough Love wrote:

<quoted text>
I find it interesting that the dry supporters, are not only offended by the fact that some would want to open our doors to alcohol sales, but also by the very idea of putting the issue on the ballot. This is one of our most basic freedoms and anyone who would oppose our right to decide these types of issues should be viewed with skepticism and concern.

Very good point. The dry crowd tries their best to prevent the issue from being voted on. In past elections they've tried to shame petition signers, blackballed businesses supportive of the wet initiative, denied services to needy families once they discover that same family signed a petition.

They are very vengeful and full of spite when it comes to the wet/dry issue. Since the internet has really spread throughout the county such tactics don't work like they once did. Oftentimes they backfire on the church or pastor responsible since it can no longer be hidden from the public eye.

Tough Love wrote:

<quoted text>
First: Alcohol is a legal substance in the US. Meth is not. All Progress Somerset wants is for the people of Somerset to vote on allowing a legal commodity to be sold in their community.
Second: When a religious organization is granted tax exempt status it is with the understanding -- a promise really -- that their activities will be religious in nature -- not political. When they go back on that "promise" then they should be held accountable. Actually, some churches have chosen to forego their tax exempt status so that they can freely conduct activities that are more political in nature. I have great respect for these institutions because they put their principles before money.
Third: The word is "Gestapo" not "castapo." It is an abbreviation for Geheime Staatspolizei, which means "Secret State Police" in German. The role of the Gestapo was to safeguard an oppressive regime which had effectively removed the rule of law from the people under the premise that they knew what was best for German society.
I find it interesting that the dry supporters, are not only offended by the fact that some would want to open our doors to alcohol sales, but also by the very idea of putting the issue on the ballot. This is one of our most basic freedoms and anyone who would oppose our right to decide these types of issues should be viewed with skepticism and concern.

Look, I have read a lot of ranting against Church's not going out against Illegal drugs instead of alcohol, with the exact same logic that you just used, yet when someone on the "Dry" side makes the exact same point about illegal drugs it is a different story. As far as the "exempt" status your correct, if they do anything outside of the regulations they should be ready to loose that status. Doesn't mean they can't do it. Sorry for the typo earlier. Thanks for the error correction. Yep, and the Gestapo used informants to get information on citizens to be investigated by the state. What you fail to understand was they did not consider themselves "repressive" at the time. We do now. America did then. They did not. From their viewpoint they were enforcing their laws. So when/if someone comes on here and states they will be informing the IRS or any other entity in order to even a score, it just rings familiar. Oh and btw, I have read Mein Kampf.. twice.. so when I say typo, it was.

WellOkThen wrote:

<quoted text>
Look, I have read a lot of ranting against Church's not going out against Illegal drugs instead of alcohol, with the exact same logic that you just used, yet when someone on the "Dry" side makes the exact same point about illegal drugs it is a different story.

Of course it's a different story.

You can't see the difference between being vocal against illegal drugs, which anyone would applaud a church for doing, and voting to legalize meth, which is an impossibility?

One thing, good for everyone.

The other, not possible, plus simply a way for teetotalers to try and associate illegal drugs to legal alcohol.

So yes, it's a totally different story.

WellOkThen wrote:

<quoted text>
Look, I have read a lot of ranting against Church's not going out against Illegal drugs instead of alcohol, with the exact same logic that you just used, yet when someone on the "Dry" side makes the exact same point about illegal drugs it is a different story. As far as the "exempt" status your correct, if they do anything outside of the regulations they should be ready to loose that status. Doesn't mean they can't do it. Sorry for the typo earlier. Thanks for the error correction. Yep, and the Gestapo used informants to get information on citizens to be investigated by the state. What you fail to understand was they did not consider themselves "repressive" at the time. We do now. America did then. They did not. From their viewpoint they were enforcing their laws. So when/if someone comes on here and states they will be informing the IRS or any other entity in order to even a score, it just rings familiar. Oh and btw, I have read Mein Kampf.. twice.. so when I say typo, it was.

For the most part, the tax code was written to keep churches and clergy from unfair leverage over the political process -- in particular supporting one candidate over another. For example, in Louisville there is an ongoing case where a local preacher told his congregation from the pulpit that they should not vote for a certain candidate and do everything in their power to defeat him. This is a huge no-no and will likely result in the church in question loosing their tax exempt status. However, when you switch from candidates to issues it gets a bit murkier, particularly when a church and clergy are trying to affect legislation. As with all things there are rules and exceptions to the rules. That’s why it’s best for a concerned citizen to file the complaint and then let the IRS determine it’s validity.

Tax exempt status is a privilege not a right and when churches abuse it, they should be called to task. I see nothing wrong with someone filing an report to the IRS if they have evidence of abuse of the tax exempt regulations. The review process was established just for this purpose and I personally do not believe it is an example of government overreach. It’s the same as advising the police of a suspected bootlegger or meth dealer in the neighborhood. You report it and hope that they will investigate. In this case though, I suspect it's far more likely that the IRS will look into a complaint than our local police would if someone complained about local bootleggers.

Tough Love wrote:

<quoted text>
It’s the same as advising the police of a suspected bootlegger or meth dealer in the neighborhood. You report it and hope that they will investigate. In this case though, I suspect it's far more likely that the IRS will look into a complaint than our local police would if someone complained about local bootleggers.

Do you really think that the tax exemption status of a organization being rejected or upheld is the same as someone dealing in a controlled or illegal substance? Really? Why would you think that about the IRS? Do you not have faith in the local police in regards to people selling a controlled substance?
Make no mistake, it is a controlled substance, it's not like buying bottled water. When it is legal to sell it is highly regulated. Many think that selling it is a get rich quick business, it is not, ask the owners of some of the places in Burnside about the fines they have paid for over selling, while the drunk driver walks. Ask them about the liability insurance costs.

WellOkThen wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you really think that the tax exemption status of a organization being rejected or upheld is the same as someone dealing in a controlled or illegal substance? Really? Why would you think that about the IRS? Do you not have faith in the local police in regards to people selling a controlled substance?
Make no mistake, it is a controlled substance, it's not like buying bottled water. When it is legal to sell it is highly regulated. Many think that selling it is a get rich quick business, it is not, ask the owners of some of the places in Burnside about the fines they have paid for over selling, while the drunk driver walks. Ask them about the liability insurance costs.

No, it would more than likely involve ATF....as for local police.....get real! They're part of the bootlegging problem! Ever hear of a payoff? Wake up America! How do you think people stay in business soooooo long bootlegging? Shear luck? Come on man! You see these small time drug peddlers nailed everyday, yet, the big boys and the bootlegger remain unscathed (a lot of times, they're one in the same)......why do YOU think that's the case? Local police .....ppppppppffffffffffffttttt tttttttt!!!!!!!

_-_Nope_-_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Quite obviously. But then again, these 'driers' will resort to anything.
Tourist season is about to start up down there again. It will be lines of boats on trailers on that stretch of hwy 27 pretty soon. Their coolers will be full of things they've brought with them when they go elsewhere to get beer, soda and ice. They'll also go ahead and get snacks and such for their trips wherever they stop for what they can't get here. Why make two trips when you're anxious to get out on the water?
The only thing they'll possibly need by the time they get here is gasoline. And Burnside is the logical choice. The BP station alone has PLENTY of room for filling up both your boat AND your vehicle. No trouble pulling in, no trouble pulling out..

Wait you are forgetting, after all that stopping and buying elsewhere...they may also need "Mix" in the end! Ohhh wait that's right...Food stop is closed! Give me a break!

WellOkThen wrote:

<quoted text>
No one is ignoring that. Where you at the awareness march last Sunday? Oh wait, you would have to be aware. Whoops, sorry. I know, since there has to be a vote on a ballot for "SOME" to be aware, why don't you petition for meth to be legal? Or better yet, hire more IRS agents to shut down organizations that actually help society. I know, why don't you start a "Peoples castapo" group and go after anyone that opposes what you believe is right?

I was invited but have been against illegal drugs for decades - My main reason for not marching was , why now ??- Why not years ago ??- Seemed like a publicity stunt for certain preachers to boost their popularity - Why not a march against unsolved murders , child abuse , and various other crimes against humanity ?- Why start at the FBC of C ??- Hoping for a generous donation ??- A former preacher from there made out like a bandit on the last wet / dry petition drive , so now maybe it's drug awareness time ??- Marching to a court house doesn't cut it for me - Pick up a phone and turn in a cooker or dealer - I don't have to parade down a street to show my opposition - But , it's everyone's right to peacefully assemble and protest -

Knowitall9 wrote:

<quoted text>I was invited but have been against illegal drugs for decades - My main reason for not marching was , why now ??- Why not years ago ??- Seemed like a publicity stunt for certain preachers to boost their popularity - Why not a march against unsolved murders , child abuse , and various other crimes against humanity ?- Why start at the FBC of C ??- Hoping for a generous donation ??- A former preacher from there made out like a bandit on the last wet / dry petition drive , so now maybe it's drug awareness time ??- Marching to a court house doesn't cut it for me - Pick up a phone and turn in a cooker or dealer - I don't have to parade down a street to show my opposition - But , it's everyone's right to peacefully assemble and protest -

Amazing how someone (you in this case) can turn something good into something bad and questionable. You should examine your own motives. Why couldn't you simple say: That's AWESOME! People really do care,(even if I disagree with them on one point) this is GREAT that they can unite people to give awareness to this illicit drug problem.
Why can't it be that way?

I didn't attend the anti-drug rally so i don't know for certain but, I haven't heard that the wet/dry vote was mentioned in any way.
Seems to me raising awareness is always a good thing. However, if you live in Somerset-Pulaski County and aren't aware of the drug problem, I have to question your intellect.
It's all very safe and inviting to demonstrate in a public manner on Sunday afternoon in downtown. But, why no protests planned for the first of the month outside the local "pain clinics" or even some neighborhood-sized marches to known drug dealers homes? Until we make it so non-profitable for drug dealing scum and force them to move out of our community, things won't change.