sf said:On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 18:38:28 +0100, "Michael Kuettner"
Quoted message said:<sf> schrieb
Quoted message said:Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>Eighteen year olds are also adults for the purposes of being subjected
>to capital punishment, or going over to Iraq to get their appendages
>blown off, but they aren't allowed to consume beer.Quoted message said:Quoted message said:California already tried that idea, remember? It wasn't a good one.
We can't control Iraq and we couldn't control the Viet Nam conflict,
but we *can* control our alcohol laws.Quoted message said:Of course. Can you spell "Prohibition" ?
Strict alcohol law that made the Mafia rich.
But somehow I fail to see "control" in this scenario ...Go back to class. CA had a few years during the Viet Nam Conflict era
when the drinking age was lowered to age 18. We discovered it wasn't
a good idea and the legal drinking age reverted back to 21.
The Viet Nam Conflict showed how FU(KING STUPID 18-20 YOs were. They
fought for the USA, instead of turning the guns around on the fascist
USA military.
Viet Nam vets were CHUMPS. A working class kid who went to fight for
Capitalism was as stupid as a Jew fighting for Nazism.
My point was, if so many *kids* are too immature to be able to handle
a beer, how do we expect them to make responsible choices on military
service, or to be responsible for violence NOT condoned by the war
criminals at the Pentagon?
The working class boys were fooled into fighting for Capitalism, while
the sons of the rich stayed home, safe on college deferments, and you
can bet that the sons of the rich were getting their [censored] wet with
the daughters of the working class, while their brothers were getting
their [censored] shot off, fighting for a system that privileged the rich
boys who were getting BJs from the girls who had written the soldiers
"Dear John letters."
--Bryan