Marines allow 18 year olds to drink alcholic

Yyyyeah.

Have a nice day.

Reverend.

 

It's actually night, judging by the color of the sky and the fact that the mosquitoes are eating my alive while I write while sittign on my front porch.

I can't help but notice you ignore the substance of the post. You make a very intolerant statement of me (based on misinterpreting a joke), and then when it's pointed out, the only thing you can do is confuse the time of day. Why not respond to it? Is it because (as I suspect) you can't form a rational argument against it? If I were in your position, I would find it hard to form one. But perhaps you can do it.

 

ditto!!!!!

 

Actually PL there is at least one thing that I disagree with Ron Paul over, so far.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=39844

I don't see how he could come up with a workable solution to foreign policy when he doesn't admit to or doesn't know this part of the "United States" foreign policy history. Of course all the other candidates will never admit to knowing this part of the U.S. foreign policy either. They can't admit to it and still use the same old "they hate our freedom" propaganda. To admit to this would be admiting that their favorite boogeymen (Al Qeada) were never what they keep claiming them to be. They'd be out of their best "Goldstein" then. Who'd they get to scare American's into submission to the NWO then?

 

This subject seems to come up whenever our troops are involved in conflict.

I remember a young 19 year old Marine who entered a restaurant and ordered an alcoholic beverage. The waiter asked for ID. Without a word, the young Marine handed his military ID to the waiter and waited. The waiter and the Marine just looked at each other. Then the waiter handed the ID back and said I'll be right back with your drink.

I was that young Marine.

I know of not one good thing that comes from the consumption of alcohol. But, if a young man is mature enough to be in the Marine Corps, he is mature enough to decide for himself whether or not he wants to drink alcohol.

 

They are allowed to go to war at 18 because of the acts of Congress and the President. And you have to be 25 to be a Congressman, 30 to be a Senator, and 35 to be President. So should be enlistment age be 35 by that reasoning? Or 30? Or 25?

 

Still doesn't change the point, IMHO.

Ridiculous how we train kids to kill people, how to blow up a bridge, a tank, or a house, how to use their hands to break someone's neck, how to use the bayonet or a knife to make sure the enemy is dead, how to run through gas-filled houses without gas masks, how to sit the target's head on the sights, how to effectively use short bursts from their weapons and then send these kids to war to apply these concepts, and in addition watch their closest buddies get blown to smithereens, die in their arms, or alongside them, or maybe look down and see their legs two feet away from their thighs.

In other words, these kids are being asked to grow up beyond their actual years, mature early, face the facts of life early. They can kill or get killed, but no alcohol please.

Sir, this private wants to know why, sir !!

Because you're still a kid, according to law !! You're a minor !!

Any more questions, private ?

And here we had this thread going sometime ago about how ruthless our enemies are for allowing a 12 year old kid to behead some poor guy, and weren't we all expressing dismay at that incident ?

How about a law requiring only 21 year olds be sent to combat duty to be consistent ?

 

My argument against your "joke" is that it was niether funny nor proper, and one would expect someone who takes on the rather pretentious title of "pastor" would have the compassion and intelligence to know the line and when not to cross it.

You want to just make things you, personally, don't like illegal.

Let's take this a thing at a time. First, "Pastor," driving drunk, wifebeating, and underaged drinking are... say it with me... already illegal.

But let's not forget to take a swipe at women's groups along the way, since to your Fundamentalist mind women are lesser creatures and shouldn't be allowed to have a public voice, right? Am I close to accurate, there, "Pastor?"

Then, just in case anyone is missing your deep desire to establish theocratic rule (with you at the head), let's make sure that consenting, responsible adults are kept from drinking.

Your subsequent responses have done nothing to improve your poor showing here. Whining at me about not having a sense of humor at suggesting people you, personally, think are stupid be jailed, is hardly a position of strength in this discussion.

 

I find it passing strange that any Christian would believe the title "Pastor" to be pretentious.

You appear to be in a particularly nasty frame of mind this morning, Tragic. May I suggest some quiet time?raying:

 

Pastor Larry, you know this medium doesn't do well to convey the kind of humor you were going for. Help us out with a smiley or something that helps us know you're not dead serious about what you said.

 

First, the joke was funny. It is called irony. You simply didn't get it and now you apparently are embarrassed about it, and trying to make it about me. Own your mistake it. Don't turn it around. If you didn't get the joke, that's fine. But that's not my problem.

Second, the title pastor is hardly pretentious. However, as I have explained many times, the only reason I have it here is because when I signed up the name "Larry" was already taken. Given my aversion to using fake names, I used my real one.

Thirdly, I do have compassion and intelligence and I know the line and when not to cross it. So I didn't. You apparently have a poor sense of humor.

You obviously don't know me or my positions very well.

Was that under dispute? I wasn't aware that it was.

Nope, not even in the ballpark. Women are not now nor have they ever been lesser creatures. I "took a swipe" at women's groups because of their hypocrisy.

The idea that I desire a theocratic rule with me at the head is completely preposterous which you would know if you have read many of my posts. It is no secret that I am a flaming dispensationalist who does not even beleive there is a "kingdom" now. Theocracy will come only when Christ returns. As you should know, I completely object to the antics of mixing church and state, and many here have roundly criticized my stance that political issues do not belong in the pulpit. So I have no desire to establish a theocracy, much less a "deep desire" to have a theocracy with me at the head. Please read my posts more carefully before making this stuff up.

As for the argument that it is wrong to stop "consenting, responsible adults" from doing something, less address that on it's head. First, you assume that your definition of "consenting, responsible adults" includes people who drink. (I am not saying it doesn't. I am saying that you merely assumed your argument; you didn't make it. In line with that, many would say that alcoholics are not consenting since they are driven by an irrepressible urge (a sickness). I disagree with that, but I point it out merely to point out that your definition is not at all self-evident).

I didn't make a poor showing. You simply did not read closely and carefully.

I didn't whine at you. I simply pointed out that you missed an obvious joke. How is that difficult? Rather than accepting that and saying "Oops, my bad," you have chosen to prolong it by defending yourself and personally attacking me. The better road is to simply admit your mistake and drop it. I admit the humor was not immediately apparent to people who take themselves too seriously. I suppose it is entirely possible for someone to imagine that someone thinks stupid people should be jailed. It is hard to imagine that, but I suppose it is possible. But when it is pointed out to you, just say, "Oops, I missed it" and move on. Don't keep drawing attention to your failure.

 

Aren't there certain things that should be self-evident in even a minimally intelligent society?

 

Considering that most of the fundamentalists I run in
to have no evident minimal intelligence, you're not speaking from a position of strength.

 

This morning? Try all of the time!

 

Then you should get out more. There are no doubt fundamentalists that are not good thinkers, just as there are in all groups of people. But the fundamentalists I know are above average thinkers. I am sure there are some fundamentalists who, like you, would have missed the point. I am not sure it is in your best interests to keep pointing out your affinity with them. Your general mistemper here is not a good thing, BTW, and continually calling attention to it is not helping.

 

I've read things on this board that look like a joke, but the person who wrote them was dead serious. Perhaps my request is unreasonable.

 

Bad day?

I still suggest some quiet time.raying:

Pastor Larry has really got your goat and you're not looking very Christian right now.

 

there is no federal drinking age

Drinking age is set by the various states. Federal real estate is not under state control except by local agreement. For example, as a Seattle police officer I had no intrinsic authority on Post Office property or on Navy ship in the harbor. Then there Indian reservations. . . .