's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Bush twins turn 21 today(48 posts)

Bush twins turn 21 todayCaptain Morgan
Nov 25, 2002 7:09 AM
I bet there will be one helluva party today at Crawford.
Why the legal drinking age should be 18ms
Nov 25, 2002 7:29 AM
When I was in college, the legal drinking age was 18. I could drink on campus (including some university run dining halls) and did not have to resort to fake IDs and the like to drink off campus. Some people drank too much. But, most of us drank moderately and responsibly (with some exceptions, the details of which I can't remember). At least now the Bush twins will be able to drink without breaking the law and having to be sent to anit-drinking indoctrination classes. I think that the major effects of the increase of the legal drinking age to 21 have been to encourage illegal behavior, off-campus parties that are much rowdier and dangerous than on-campus parties with alcohol were in the late 1970s (example: a University of Maryland student was fatally stabbed a few weeks ago at an off-campus party by a crasher), and binge drinking. Although it never will happen, I think it would be great if the Bush twins, now that they safely are over 21, would advocate for dropping the drinking age to 18.
do not bring up such issuesMJ
Nov 25, 2002 7:39 AM
they are un-American

it is normal and natural for teenagers to be prohibited from drinking while being allowed to own and shoot high powered weaponry
totally agreeColnagoFE
Nov 25, 2002 8:12 AM
if you can vote and die for your country at 18 why shouldn't you be trusted with booze?
totally disagreeMatno
Nov 25, 2002 10:03 AM
Why should ANYBODY be "trusted" with booze? Or any other addictive, mind-altering substance for that matter? Anybody can make a stupid mistake when under the influence, alcohol is addictive (which means that addicts literally do not have the same type of control over their actions), alcohol changes your level of consciousness (so is that really "you" we are trusting?), so really the only safe way for many people to drink is to lock themself in a room with no way out until they are sober. Of course, that would be ridiculous, but I think the astronomical numbers of tragic events that are alcohol related (and thus completely preventable) in this country ought to be more than enough reason to bring back Prohibition. Ain't gonna happen, but there are a lot of other logical things that aren't going to either. Personally, I've never understood drinking, even "social drinking." I see people getting blasted at parties for international delegates all the time, and a lot of them do stupid things. Inevitably, if you bring up anything that happened at the party in a conversation the next day, they are embarrassed. (A recent karaoke party at a foreign ambassadors headquarters was a great example of this). These are the people who are supposed to be representing their countries. ("Dignitaries" my eye!) I'd rather be in control of my actions, but obviously, a lot of people don't feel the same way. Just my 2 cents...
not that you'd invite meMJ
Nov 25, 2002 10:14 AM
but if you ever throw a party - I'm not coming...

what do you do sit around and discuss bible stories, the white wing Republican agenda and the great decisions of the Supreme Court?

you must be a troll - nobody can be that old timey - except my grandmother - but than again she's in her 80's, rarely rides and doesn't visit this forum - she'd probably vote to bring back prohibition too

I don't know what kind of law you practice (or intend to practice) - but you'll find that most of the wheels of law, commerce and politics are lubricated with alcohol - you'd better learn the art of standing with a full glass for entire evenings while chaos (and merriment) descends around you - and be warned others may have a good time without you...
why should anyone be trusted with anything?ColnagoFE
Nov 25, 2002 10:17 AM
personally i don't want the government telling me what to do or not to do any more than neccesary. if you don't like alcohol then don't drink it, but i imagine there are plenty of people who are not binge drinkers or alcoholics that enjoy a beer or glass of wine and don't drink to the point they embarass themselves. why penalize them for the actions of those who abuse it?
cultural relativismMJ
Nov 25, 2002 10:21 AM
in respect to drinking is being ignored

in the UK - embarassing yourself usually means soiling yourself as a direct result of inebriation - are we talking the same ball park in the US?

seriously though people in Euroland drink alot - drink often - drink more than just for the taste

"abuse" is a relative term - I think Oprah did a show on it once...
agree to a pointMatno
Nov 25, 2002 10:27 AM
It's a tough line to draw. However, I STRONGLY feel that drunk drivers should NOT get a second chance. Permanent revocation of their license on a first offense and mandatory (long) jail time for a second. That might help with some of the problems we have. Probably wouldn't do a lot for violent crime (the vast majority of which are committed under the influence of alcohol or other drugs - mostly alcohol).

As far as trusting people goes, I think you have to make a big distinction between trusting people, and trusting people under the influence of drugs. When your consciousness, coordination, inhibition, etc. are impaired, I would argue that you are not the same person. Not that that should be a valid excuse for anyone who commits a crime under the influence...
your mens reaMJ
Nov 25, 2002 10:33 AM
point should be extended to the mentally disabled, children, cult members and people who are generally uncoordinated, uninhibited - if somebody does something wrong they should pay the price - even if they didn't mean for it to happen

maybe capital punishment for alcohol related crimes is the way forward?

seriously - do you have friends who think like this who you can talk to? or are you a very lonely person?
cult members?Matno
Nov 25, 2002 12:20 PM
They're just weird. Not incompetent. I think you missed my point. The mentally disabled (most of them anyway) do not CHOOSE to become so. Someone who drinks to the point of being inebriated chooses to do so. I think the mens rea of getting drunk ought to be applied toward any crimes committed while under the influence. As for people who are naturally uninhibited, they need to learn to control their actions just like anyone else (assuming it's not the result of a mental disorder). If they can't, they had better take extra precautions or face the consequences. Same goes for many mental patients who take drugs that remove inhibitions (or any other medications for any number of conditions that have similar mind/mood-altering effects - provided that the patient is aware of the effects beforehand).

A lot of people feel the same way I do about this. You must be hanging out in pretty small circles not to have noticed. I also have plenty of friends who would disagree with me. Doesn't change my opinion.
Glad that you have friends who disagree with you . . .ms
Nov 25, 2002 12:30 PM
I disagree with a lot of what you have said. But, others have responded, so I will not pile on top of them. Given your extreme views, I am glad that you have friends that disagree with you. I have no problem with friends with strong convictions, even though I am more middle-of-the road in my views. However, I think that it is important that those with strong convictions realize that their positions are not held universally and that they find a way to coexist with persons of opposing views.
Don't people argue that because of manditory drugeyebob
Nov 25, 2002 1:02 PM
sentencing our jails are now full of non-violent addicts/pushers? Wouldn't we need to add whole wings to our jails to house our drunks too?

sounds like pretty stiff and inordinately harsh penalty to pay....

inordinately harsh?Matno
Nov 25, 2002 1:55 PM
I don't think so. What is inordinately harsh about penalizing someone who endangered lives in a way that is illegal? (And stupid). I'm not saying it should be any stiffer than other penalties. I think ALL penalties for crimes should be stiffer. Particularly violent crimes. As for overcrowding, we don't use the death penalty nearly enough. Murder one should get the death penalty in all but the most unusual cases.

As a side note, I find it mind-boggling that people actually believe that it's cheaper to put someone in prison for life than it is to execute them. That myth was started by some anti-death penalty group and was totally debunked years ago. The cost isn't even close.

What really chaps my hide is the selective "enforcement" of gun laws. Actually, the non-enforcement would be more accurate. Gun control advocates brag that the Brady bill and other background checks stop "hundreds of thousands" of felons from purchasing guns. Every such attempt is a crime that should be punished, yet far less than 1% are even prosecuted. Of course, then the left wing cries that we need more gun control laws, etc. The lack of logic is astounding.
Another dispatch from Conservative fantasy land?czardonic
Nov 25, 2002 2:27 PM
Execute all the murderers you want. You'll still have rampant overcrowding in prisons due to non-violent drug offenders.

Oh, and you don't suppose the the lack of enforcement of current gun-control laws is due to the obstructionist tactics of the NRA and the radical, "activist", conservative DA's, judges and legislators that make sure gun nuts go unpunished? I don't suppose that you see a contradiction in undermining a law, and then pointing to its ineffectiveness.
Bass ackwards.Matno
Nov 25, 2002 7:19 PM
You have no idea what you're talking about when you mention "obstructionist tactics." Almost all obstruction to enforcement of gun laws comes from the left. (The Clinton administration was particularly guilty). The NRA and other conservatives have been crying for enforcement of existing gun laws for years. The current laws already do everything they possibly could to prevent criminal ownership without infringing the rights of normal citizens. (Actually, they do step on our toes way too much, but that's not relevant to this argument). Of course, no law is effective if it's not enforced, and the gun control lobby certainly doesn't want to see any laws succeed until we have a total ban on all firearms.

As for your "conservative fantasy land" crack, I prefer to hold out the ideal as a goal, rather than accepting lesser goals like liberals do. If that's a fantasy land, I'll still try to get there.
Liberals hate gun laws, huh?czardonic
Nov 26, 2002 9:00 AM
Makes sense.

Are so rabid in your "idealism" that you miss the irony of their own statement? "The current laws already do everything they possibly could to prevent criminal ownership without infringing the rights of normal citizens."

Yes, I suppose they do. And if "everything they possible could" is woefully inadequate, I guess we now know to blame the left! Let's hope those NRA can close those gun law loopholes. But, if in the meantime inoccent people continue to be killed and maimed by these insturments of death, I'll remeber to blame the left for trying to ban them.

So, in your fantasy land of ideals and goals, do hamburgers eat people?
Nov 26, 2002 9:27 AM
dude - you'll never win this argument as he studied you in neurology last week - so he's got your number and you should give up

it's hard to even discuss matters with someone who has such extreme views - but it is still very amusing

give 'em enough rope and hamburgers end up eating people
It's worth it for the free medical advice. (nm)czardonic
Nov 26, 2002 9:28 AM
Are you suggesting that we use the death penalty as a means...eyebob
Nov 26, 2002 8:05 AM
to end overcrowding?

As far as your third paragraph goes, perhaps if the Feds passed down some dinero to help prosecutors prosecute more, then DA's wouldn't have to plea out 95% of the crimes that the cops enforce. But wait, that'd put more of a burden on the jail system. Which means more jail space would be needed. But wait the Feds would have to spend there too.

I'm not so sure that the Feds (under any regime Demos or Repubs) want to consider that. Do you?
That's what I do. I get a case and lock myself in my apartment.Sintesi
Nov 25, 2002 11:09 AM
I think the "old enough to fight;old enough to drink" debate is moot. Aren't servicemen and women allowed to drink on base?
That's what I do. I get a case and lock myself in my apartment.BikeViking
Nov 25, 2002 1:08 PM
The underaged used to be allowed to buy beer on base if they were 18, even if the state drinking age was higher. This is not the case anymore...state law applies on base as well.
why is it moot?ColnagoFE
Nov 25, 2002 2:23 PM
I think if you have to sign up for selective service (ie. the draft can be brought back and you can be drafted to fight) and are able to legally vote for elected officials you should be able to be trusted with alcohol.
why is it moot?Sintesi
Nov 26, 2002 6:51 AM
My point I guess is if you are called up you can drink. But BikingViking tells me this is no longer the case so I guess this old 60s debate will return especially if we end up in a long protracted war like VN.
Why the legal drinking age should NOT be 18moneyman
Nov 25, 2002 3:51 PM
As is popular, here is the URL for a very interesting site:,1056,1114,00.html

But my post is different in that I will attach my opinion. Drunk drivers are responsible for the deaths of 17,000 people each year. Yet we as a nation are willing to view that dismal total as acceptable simply because it is alcohol related. Where do drunk-driving "accidents" get posted in the local paper? Somewhere in front of the classifieds and behind the sports. Usually carries one paragraph, maybe two. Why? Because they are

1. So common
2. Drinking related, and drinking is socially acceptable.
3. They are "accidents". Nobody really "meant" to hurt anyone.

Why are drunk driving laws so lax? My theory, of which I have anecdotal evidence only, is because the legislators voting on them do so with the fear that it may be themselves they are targeting.

Have you - or anyone reading this - ever driven drunk? I know that I have. So drunk that, when stopped by the local cop at 2:00am, (in 1977)he told me I was driving on the wrong side of the road, missed two stop signs and a red light. He let me go because I was two blocks from home and the son of the former mayor/current police commission chairman. He should have locked me up and caused great embarassment to me and my family. I was lucky I didn't kill myslef or someone else that night. My reaction at the time? As a cocky 20 year old, it turned into a great war story to be told at the bar, followed by mulitple laughs and another round.

Reading the statistics on the MADD site are sobering, pun intended. I think drunk drivers should have their licenses taken away permanently and the car they were driving confiscated and sold at auction. For those who feel sorry for the first time offender to have to receive this stiff punishment, don't believe for a second that he/she is a first time drunk driver. Just the first time they were caught.

Take away their guns too.czardonic
Nov 25, 2002 4:16 PM
After all, guns are involved in roughly the same percentage of violent crimes as alcohol (~30-40%). When will society decide to rid itself of these injurious and corrupting influences?
If the gun owner is drunk,moneyman
Nov 25, 2002 4:40 PM
Yes. Certainly.

Society will "rid itself of these injurious and corrupting influences" when it is important enough. It's not yet.

Just learned about you in neurology.Matno
Nov 25, 2002 9:24 PM
You're a classic example of someone with a right sided brain infarct. You can still grasp details, but you have no ability to put them together to form a big picture. Fascinating medicine.

(Guns are inanimate objects. They do not influence anyone. There's a reason why drunk driving is called "driving under the influence." Compare the number of times you've heard someone say "the gun made me do it" to the number of times you've heard someone say "she was a lot better looking last night when we left the bar together...").
You won't mind if I solicit a second opinion.czardonic
Nov 26, 2002 9:23 AM
Though it is always amusing to listen to a greenhorn let his enthusiasm get the better of him.

So guns are inanimate, but alcohol isn't? Alcohol exerts an influence over its user, but guns don't? Speaking of popular idioms, ever heard the phrase "drunk with power"?

I hate to break it too you, but the secrets out, man! Guns are for wusses. They allow the weak, frightened and underhanded to act on their skulking paranoia and insecurity. In short, they are the ultimate expression of the little man complex. Sometimes the "big picture" isn't so flattering, eh?
Think things throughCaptain Morgan
Nov 26, 2002 5:49 AM
Real life example from someone I know: A spouse leaves the other spouse and two small children. The remaining spouse, who is not an alcoholic but under considerable depression and stress, goes on a drinking binge, and gets busted. Who would suffer if the spouse is not able to go to work to earn a living, take the kids to daycare, or go to the grocery store? The world is not always black and white as some would like to make it.

The court's decision: Suspension of license for 1 year, but with an allowance to drive to work and daycare (but NOT grocery store - go figure). I think this was relatively fair. A better idea would be to restrict driving to daylight hours only. I would think that a vast majority of drunk driving deaths are at night.
Please see #3 in my original postmoneyman
Nov 26, 2002 7:56 AM
I believe that would cover your friend.

Your friend was lucky. His family IS lucky, as he did not kill someone else or get killed. Then where would they all be? Who would suffer in that event? And why is it excuseable for the remaining spouse, with two small children, to abrogate his parental responsibility and go on a drinking binge, depressed or not? Somehow that eludes me.

The world has an awful lot of grey in it. There are plenty of extenuating circumstances, and plenty of reasons to be lenient. However, unless one is tied down and force fed alcohol, then forced to drive drunk, the decisions to drink and drive are made by the individual. You friend did not have to drive drunk, and when he made the decision to do so, he also made the decision to accept the consequences.

Please see #3 in my original posteyebob
Nov 26, 2002 8:30 AM

For the most part I agree with your post regarding the responsibility for his (are we sure it's a he?)actions bit. Hard not to agree, but I think that your statement "And why is it excuseable for the remaining spouse, with two small children, to abrogate his parental responsibility and go on a drinking binge, depressed or not? Somehow that eludes me." simply shows that you may not fully understand what depression can do to someone. It is a mental disease. It's a bit like saying jeez, why don't my kidneys work right even though I've got diabetes?

I'd forgive him this descression as long as he s/he has learned from it.

Please see #3 in my original postmoneyman
Nov 26, 2002 8:41 AM
Captain Morgan stated that the depression was due to the breakup of the marriage. I do "fully understand what depression can do to someone". Believe me, I do.

Sorry - no discretion from me. Not given the situation in question. The spouse - he OR she - needs to assume responsibility for his/her actions.

really tired of all the anti-American postsMJ
Nov 25, 2002 7:34 AM
completely groundless attacks on the US way of life are no longer appropriate in light of the current security situation and looming war with the sponsor of terror Saddam

who are you to question the status quo with such biased facts and witless opinion?

you'll see that after the US liberates the democracy hungry Iraqi people from tyranny they will be thankful for the employment in the oil companies (yes we'll give them food too) - then the US will implement the successful gun laws to insure no more Saddams take power and that crime will be kept to an absolute minimum - then the US will teach them US style accounting practices so they can maximise their profits and particpate in the global economy

your post about the Bush girls undermines the international war on terror and only paints you as the illiterate anti-American liberal that you are - you'll probably tell me that Burger King is going under next!!

anyways I've already read about it and don't think you should be posting about subjects that I already know about
<--- Conservative/moderate RepublicanCaptain Morgan
Nov 25, 2002 7:58 AM
Never voted for a Democrat in my life. You are reading something into the post that isn't there, which I think is common for right-wing fanatics. Perhaps if I posted something on the Olsen twins, you could likewise argue that I was somehow supporting al-Qaida.
I'm no fanaticMJ
Nov 25, 2002 8:02 AM
but it is clear that by posting about such issues ("facts" as you may describe them - though your "sources" are consistently demonstrated to be stooges of the pinko left) you are undermining the security of the US

LOL :-)
Hey at least he didn't give us a Guardian URL to read (nm)ColnagoFE
Nov 25, 2002 8:14 AM
Oh really, you guys are just too muchEager Beagle
Nov 25, 2002 8:52 AM
but, tisk, if you really want one, then I suppose I'll just have to oblige..,1282,-2197981,00.html

Be careful though, it's anti-American "shit" remember...
last three paragraphs are very entertainingMJ
Nov 25, 2002 8:55 AM
One provision permits federal business with American companies that have moved their operations abroad to sidestep U.S. taxes.

Another measure legally shields drug companies already sued over ingredients used in vaccines. Democrats said this includes claims that mercury-based preservatives have caused autism in children.

Also re-examined will be a section that helps Texas A&M University win homeland security research money. The district of incoming House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is near Texas A&M.
Godbless 'em.Sintesi
Nov 25, 2002 8:02 AM
I for one am glad the Bush girls are now legally drunk. I will be popping off 42 shots (21 per Bush princess) from the roof of my apartment building into the night sky this evening in celebration. For safety reasons I will limit myself to .22 caliber ammo.
Really tired of people who think dissent is anti-Americancory
Nov 25, 2002 8:19 AM
Simply calling everything you don't agree with "anti-American" is lazy, dishonest and (yes!) anti-American. It's the same scuzzy technique Bush and the gang are using to hide behind the vague threat of Iraq while they roll back (just for instance) completely unrelated environmental and worker protection regulations.
But I'll make you a deal: If you can explain how making a joke about the Bush girls "undermines the international war on terror," I'll give you your choice of a kiss on the butt or a new Rivendell. And speaking of "illiterate," the word is "anyway," not "anyways." There's no such word as "anyways."
whose butt mine or yours? and who does the kissing?MJ
Nov 25, 2002 8:22 AM
I think you need to take your irony medicine... but I'm glad someone said it "anyways" LOL - :-)
Nov 25, 2002 4:17 PM
One entry found for anyways.
Main Entry: any·ways
Pronunciation: -"wAz
Function: adverb
Date: 13th century
1 a archaic : ANYWISE b dialect : to any degree at all
2 chiefly dialect : ANYHOW, ANYWAY
lots of factions do it - like the anti-SUV peopletrekkie1
Nov 26, 2002 7:18 AM
What about the anti-SUV people who label SUV drivers "anti-American?" Same thing. I agree, it's a weak, silly, argument, no matter who does it.
Yep. SUV drivers are <i>un-</i>American, not anti-American. (nm)czardonic
Nov 26, 2002 9:26 AM
Hey!!!...that's sarcasm, isn't it?!?!?! nmBikeViking
Nov 25, 2002 10:18 AM
I knew I could count on you BVMJ
Nov 25, 2002 10:23 AM
thanks for the signposting

some of my fellow liberals missed that...

I knew I could count on you BVBikeViking
Nov 25, 2002 1:13 PM
Not really sure of the purpose of this thread...seems to be a rambling coagulation of many subjects.

Great, the Bush girls can drink. As adults that is their right. If they do soemthing to endanger others, they will be punished accordingly.

HOw did the "War on Terror" come up? I missed the boat on that one.