Not sure I agree with you take on if-by-whiskey. I read the excerpt from the speech in the link you posted. He isn’t “taking the good parts of whisky and reject

Not sure I agree with you take on if-by-whiskey. I read the excerpt from the speech in the link you posted. He isn’t “taking the good parts of whisky and rejecting the bad”. He simply stating what the good and bad are, without taking a side. Further, you can’t legalize the good effects of whisky while outlawing the bad. Whisky is either legal or illegal, and you accept or reject both the good and the bad. Essentially he’s pandering to his audience without making a stance on whether or not he supports legal whisky. How is that a “thing of beauty”? I think I kind of get what you’re saying. That we should have more nuance in our opinions. But I don’t think if-by-whisky supports that like you’re suggesting. Edit: I also realize I’m probably taking your comment to seriously. For which I apologize :)