Do you think the drinking age should be 18 again?

I think that smith285 was trying to say that the state's voting populace DOESN'T determine the laws, because we're a republic and not a democracy, those elected into office do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

I think that smith285 was trying to say that the state's voting populace DOESN'T determine the laws, because we're a republic and not a democracy, those elected into office do.

---

Yes, and then those same people that voted for those in power complain about the laws that those politicians write in. Or worse, do not vote, then complain even more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smith285

The government (specifically liberals) don't want you to think for yourself and suffer consequences of your own decisions. they'd rather the government control everything, and it's a scary path we are heading down.

---

Believe me the conservatives are no better than the liberals. I am about as liberal as they come. You may want to talk to some more liberals because many of us believe in taking responsibility for your decisions and preserving Americans rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Typical_08

Umm. We are a republic.
That is what we do.

---

That's exactly what I just said :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

They didn't "agree" to make it 21 across the board, exactly. The federal government decided that they would only give money to build roads to states that had a drinking age of 21. Basically, the federal government passed a nationwide drinking age without actually passing a law. IMO this is a grievous overstepping of authority, trampling on state's and voter's rights.

---

Ah yes, I knew there was more to it, couldn't remember though. Thanks for clarifying

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egapal

Believe me the conservatives are no better than the liberals. I am about as liberal as they come. You may want to talk to some more liberals because many of us believe in taking responsibility for your decisions and preserving Americans rights.

---

I know, but I'm a conservative and like to take jabs at liberals :P Neither of them can get it right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egapal

Believe me the conservatives are no better than the liberals. I am about as liberal as they come. You may want to talk to some more liberals because many of us believe in taking responsibility for your decisions and preserving Americans rights.

---

I believe that would make you a blue dog, not a liberal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smith285

That's exactly what I just said :confused:

---

Ok, I must have mistook what you were trying to say.

This is a long thread, but I'm add ing what I think.
Lower the drinking age, raise the driveing age. I drank a lot when I was 15-18, but once I turned 21 I stopped. But then I also did not get my licence till I moved out here when I was 21. all the time before that I took the bus.
driving age out here is 14-16 (not sure on the exact)
Thery is if first you lean to hold your liquor, then you settle down, when you grow up THEN you can drive.

The driveing, and other laws should be the same accross the whole USA, this is the UNITED states, not the DEVIDED states.

P.S. in some southern states it is still illigal to buy any "adult" items (for all ages)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadera

Military folks are able to drink at 18 on base. Personal experience and many, many fuzzy nights. :gj:

---

What militrary are you talking about? I have dedicated sixteen years to the US Air Force now and have not been aware that 18 year olds could drink on a state side base. Many people turn a blind eye to the under age drinkers in the beginning, but as soon as the military turned to the zero tolerance stance, things changed and they changed real fast.

Now as for the overseas bases when I came in the law was kept at 18. They then up the age to 21 on all overseas bases a couple of years after I came in. If the law of the country you are in is 18 then you can drink off base, but you better not come back on base if you aren't 21. I have seen many good young kids get in trouble and kicked out of the military for underage drinking.

In my personal opinion I do belive that if you are old enough to fight and die for our country you should be able to have a drink anytime you want. By that I talking about anyone who enlists with any branch of the US military.:salute:

I would disagree with raising the driving age for several reasons.

One, because you would see a lot of dollars not being spent on the market. In most areas of our country you need a vehicle in order to work. Two, I noticed something after I joined the Corps, though it took me a long time to come to a conclusion. I noticed that the cars that had NY plates had less experienced drivers. After time I realized that this was likely because when they lived in NY they did not have to have a vehicle to get from place to place. But after they joined the Corps, and moved to Jacksonville, they had to have a vehicle, so now we have a bunch of 18 and 19 year old kids getting vehicles, who do not have the two for or six years of driving experience that one would have had if they came from a rural area. Those people tended to have more accidents and moving violations than those who had been driving since they were 14 years old or younger. Yes you could increase requirements to get a license, but some things only come with experience. I would say that a good 70% of the traffic accidents I see down here come from people that came from those larger cities where there was no need to have a car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleindiangirl

Maybe it's a base by base thing? ;)

---

Not a base thing. The law is the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littleindiangirl

Maybe it's a base by base thing? ;)

---

No, it used to be (back in the late 80s to mid 90s IIRC) that if you had a military id, you could drink at the Eclub. And even in the late 90s and early 00s while the law was 21 on base, most Eclubs did not care. But in about 01 they started to really crack down on underage drinking.

Sorry for the flash back. But anyway.

When I first joined I remember being a young private and got a look at the training schedule. Monday morning PT, then hump to the field, train till Thursday then hump back. Friday morning hump out and back, weapons maintaince and classes and secure for libo.

The schedule was like that for the next several months. SO I naturally figured life would suck.

Well that Friday we were coming back from our little 15 mile hump, and as we got close to the Company office we could smell steaks. Off to the left was a smoking hot chick wearing short shorts and a bikini top. I remember being envious because that meant that someone would be getting off early and having a little party.

Well we fell into formation, and the Co took it from First Sergeant. He said, "Have em fall out, throw the weapons in the armory, shower and change into civies. Then meet me by the pavilion."

I was shocked. I figured we would be playing stupid games all day.

Well we all did as told.

Well a bunch of us that were under 21 were kind of milling about eating our burgers and steak, wondering why there was no soda to drink when the half sloshed Captain came walking over to us and asked why we were not hitting up the kegs he bought. We simply responded that we weren't 21. In his own words. "I don't give a flying f. Drink, have a good time, go back to your rooms and drink, keep it nice and the OOD will not f with you. We work hard, we play harder."

Well we did just that. And we did this almost every Friday for the better part of six months. Not one person from our company got into trouble. Not one. We drank and had a good time, then drank in our rooms.

Well then after we got back from deployment we figured all would be the same. Nope. Mother MC decided that too many people were drinking and getting into trouble. So they started enforcing the no beer under 21, the OODs started walking through the BEQ, and what not. If you were 21 and were a LCpl or below you could only have one six pack in your room, if you were a Cpl or Sgt and were 21 you could have a 12 pack. So the younger kids figured that they would just go get a hotel room so they could drink. Which was all fine and dandy. They stayed there and got sloshed. But fairly quickly they realized that they could only do that one or two weekends a month because a Private or PFC didn't make much money, so they started sneaking drinks in the clubs.

In 2001 we lost more Marines to drunk driving accidents than we did on operations around the world. And in the first six months we were back from dep, we had 11 NJPs because of alchol related incidences in our Company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Typical_08

I believe that would make you a blue dog, not a liberal.

---

Nope I am a liberal. Being liberal means that I believe that individual liberty should be the most important political goal and further that all people should have equal opportunity to things like education and health care oh and yeah food. Liberal is not a dirty word. I do go as far as to believe that government should try to help those in need. But that does not mean that I believe in a nanny state. Remember that Jesus thought it was a good idea to help out the poor too.

Please do not judge all liberals based on a few radicals. I certainly do not lump all conservatives together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egapal

Nope I am a liberal. Being liberal means that I believe that individual liberty should be the most important political goal and further that all people should have equal opportunity to things like education and health care oh and yeah food. Liberal is not a dirty word. I do go as far as to believe that government should try to help those in need. But that does not mean that I believe in a nanny state. Remember that Jesus thought it was a good idea to help out the poor too.

Please do not judge all liberals based on a few radicals. I certainly do not lump all conservatives together.

---

That may be the classic definition, but liberalism has changed drastically in the past decade or two. I did not quit on the democratic party, the democratic party quit on me.

And equal opportunity does not automatically mean equal means.

And this is one of the things that I very much disagree with liberals. The government is only and should only be responsible for the bare minimum. Defense, interstates, and a few other things that we probably do not need to get into. Welfare is a responsibility of the community, because the government can not even manage a whorehouse, let alone the other programs that many think they should be involved in.

Today, liberal (as defined by the liberals that the liberals have put in charge) more governmental control, lower state rights, fewer individual rights, etc al.

it still is in 1/2 of the Canadian Provinces ... Alberta,Manitoba, Quebec among others ... everywhere else its 19 !!! BOO YAAA GO CANADA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TRUE NORTH STRONG AND FREE!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egapal

Nope I am a liberal. Being liberal means that I believe that individual liberty should be the most important political goal

---

I'm pretty sure that is more libertarian than liberal thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egapal

and further that all people should have equal opportunity to things like education and health care oh and yeah food. Liberal is not a dirty word. I do go as far as to believe that government should try to help those in need.

---

This is more liberal thinking. Take it to a bigger extreme and it's socialist thinking(everyone has an equal opportunity because everyone shares everything through taxes). Take it to the biggest extreme you can think of and it's communism(everyone has an equal opportunity because there is no opportunity to be had.. lol). It all depends on what you consider "equal opportunity".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egapal

But that does not mean that I believe in a nanny state. Remember that Jesus thought it was a good idea to help out the poor too.

---

And where does that leave non-christians? Just a question out of curiosity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egapal

Please do not judge all liberals based on a few radicals. I certainly do not lump all conservatives together.

---

I don't :D I'm not trying to argue with what you said, but I just wanted to clarify how the word "liberal" is used. The original use of "liberal" used to mean simply being open-minded to new ideas and change, and "conservative" to mean opposed to change and preserving things as they are. This has since become more atheist vs religious fanatic, pro-taxes vs anti-tax, banning guns vs 2nd amendment.. and numerous other issues that people talk about all the time.

The majority of people who call themselves "liberals" nowadays lean towards bigger federal government, smaller state and local government, favor high taxes, and want to restrict many liberties such as the right to bear arms while at the same time providing rights for gay couples and women wanting abortions

They are by no means in favor of increasing any and all civil liberties.

That is more the libertarian ideology(specifically just with regard to social issues, economic libertarianism is a little big seperate)

I am a pretty strong libertarian(almost anarchist.. but I sure do like them paving my roads) who is willing to compromise on some issues since I have never met a person who agrees 100% with what is important to me. I'm an atheist heathen to boot, which surely has shaped my views. When it comes to laws about drinking, drugs, sex, gambling, and other "vices", I'd love to see every single darn one of them repealed. In fact I'd love to see laws put in place to protect such rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

I'm pretty sure that is more libertarian than liberal thinking.

---

Libertarian means you don't want anyone telling you what to do. What I was saying is that goverments goal should be to preserve rights for all. These things are all pretty subtle and I would say that I am in many ways a libertarian as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

This is more liberal thinking. Take it to a bigger extreme and it's socialist thinking(everyone has an equal opportunity because everyone shares everything through taxes). Take it to the biggest extreme you can think of and it's communism(everyone has an equal opportunity because there is no opportunity to be had.. lol). It all depends on what you consider "equal opportunity".

---

What you are doing there is called Reductio ad absurdum. Basically you are saying that being a liberal is wrong because of what taking my beliefs to the extreme are. I do not take my beliefs to the extreme and so I don't get your point. I am not a communist just a liberal.

Quote:

---

And where does that leave non-christians? Just a question out of curiosity.

---

Well I am an atheist so that leaves us both at about the same place. You can believe that Jesus existed and was a stand up guy without being Christian.

Quote:

---

I don't :D I'm not trying to argue with what you said, but I just wanted to clarify how the word "liberal" is used. The original use of "liberal" used to mean simply being open-minded to new ideas and change, and "conservative" to mean opposed to change and preserving things as they are. This has since become more atheist vs religious fanatic, pro-taxes vs anti-tax, banning guns vs 2nd amendment.. and numerous other issues that people talk about all the time.

The majority of people who call themselves "liberals" nowadays lean towards bigger federal government, smaller state and local government, favor high taxes, and want to restrict many liberties such as the right to bear arms while at the same time providing rights for gay couples and women wanting abortions

They are by no means in favor of increasing any and all civil liberties.

That is more the libertarian ideology(specifically just with regard to social issues, economic libertarianism is a little big seperate)

I am a pretty strong libertarian(almost anarchist.. but I sure do like them paving my roads) who is willing to compromise on some issues since I have never met a person who agrees 100% with what is important to me. I'm an atheist heathen to boot, which surely has shaped my views. When it comes to laws about drinking, drugs, sex, gambling, and other "vices", I'd love to see every single darn one of them repealed. In fact I'd love to see laws put in place to protect such rights.

---

Ok, if you want to see laws put in place you are certainly not an anarchist. I understand what the common perception of liberals is but I disagree with your assertion that liberals want to restrict liberties. I think you may be mixing up democrats with liberals now. Like I said I am a pretty strong libertarian who likes roads. I drink a bit, don't partake in any illegal drugs but don't much care about those who do in moderation. I gamble on occasion and like I said I'm an atheist. But I also think the government needs to protect the environment, anyone should be able to sleep with or marry anyone the damn well please various other generally considered liberal things. I don't want to get into each of my various thoughts on things and characterize them. My only point was that Conservatives are not doing a great job at preserving liberties either. Does anyone want to argue that point or should we discuss further the various intricacies of the labels we love so much?

Call me old fashioned, but I agree. Alchohol don't make people drive drunk. Not drinking responsibly does! I'v seen worse driving out of idiots and the "yuppie" type trying to drive while texting, or talking on their phones! That's why i try to get REALLY CLOSE to them while their doing it!!:colbert:
I'll honk and they usually tell me thet I'm number one with them!!:gj:I love it.
Seeings how i'm in a f250 deisel 4x4. I still wish you could call someone out at high noon and meet them in the middle of the street!:rofl:

By the way, The aclu should be banned as well!! Do away with welfare and food stamps too! What people do in their homes is THEIR buisness! I also think that whoever they want to spend their life with is up to them as well. If I can provide health benefits for my spouse then, so can they! As long as they are paying for it like me! Slavery dead, Racism Bad. That being said, I WILL NOT give up my guns or freedoms, but I am a democrat. go figure . The ones who hate laws, are usually the ones who are breaking them. I will not treat you any different because you look different from me, BUT I don't owe you anything either!! Ban the celeb awards too! they have enough already. If we would'nt put these people so high up on a pedastal, they would not have so far to fall when they do something human. Pizza, cigar in the white house!
go slick Willy! Suprise!! He's human too! There now I've ranted enough. Call me redneck if you want, I'm proud of it and wouldn't change it. I work and pay my bills with no gvt. handouts!:salute:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egapal

Libertarian means you don't want anyone telling you what to do. What I was saying is that goverments goal should be to preserve rights for all. These things are all pretty subtle and I would say that I am in many ways a libertarian as well.

---

Not so much. Please educate yourself. And no I am not a Libertarian.

Quote:

---

What you are doing there is called Reductio ad absurdum. Basically you are saying that being a liberal is wrong because of what taking my beliefs to the extreme are. I do not take my beliefs to the extreme and so I don't get your point. I am not a communist just a liberal.

---

I do not know about him. But I am saying that being a lib is wrong because of what it stands for today. How can you identify with a group that does not share your beliefs or politics?

Quote:

---

Well I am an atheist so that leaves us both at about the same place. You can believe that Jesus existed and was a stand up guy without being Christian.

---

Yes you sure can. You can also see that when he said we should help the poor or weak or how ever you see it, that he said we, not the government.

Quote:

---

but I disagree with your assertion that liberals want to restrict liberties.

---

Then please explain the standard lib campaign. And tell me how it does not restrict the liberties of the people. Take a look at the liberal democrats and how they have voted, then tell me how they are not trying to take away our liberties.

Quote:

---

Like I said I am a pretty strong libertarian who likes roads

---

No, you said you were about as liberal as they come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Typical_08

Not so much. Please educate yourself. And no I am not a Libertarian.

---

See at the top of that quote where it says originally posted by Typical_08. Yeah you are quoting my response to mainbutter not you. I am very well educated thank you. The problem with defining modern libertarianism is that by definitions its hard to get us all to agree. I stand by my fast and dirty definition of "Libertarian means you don't want anyone telling you what to do." Unless you can site something to the contrary. Its not an all encompassing definition but it will do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Typical_08

I do not know about him. But I am saying that being a lib is wrong because of what it stands for today. How can you identify with a group that does not share your beliefs or politics?

---

Again I am liberal and liberal politicians today do share my beliefs and politics. Now if I wanted to feed the flame war I would say that you are being a typical conservative here by telling me that what I believe is wrong and then more insultingly telling me that I don't even know what I myself believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Typical_08

Yes you sure can. You can also see that when he said we should help the poor or weak or how ever you see it, that he said we, not the government.

---

I apologize for bringing religion into this thread I will not quote further on it. That being said I stand by what I have said so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Typical_08

Then please explain the standard lib campaign. And tell me how it does not restrict the liberties of the people. Take a look at the liberal democrats and how they have voted, then tell me how they are not trying to take away our liberties.

---

There is no standard liberal campaign as liberal is not a political party. If something is being described as liberal by definition it should not be restricting individual liberties. Keep in mind this does not have anything to do with restricting companies. I have looked at how liberal democrats and liberal republicans have voted and I have not disagreed with their voting record based on the issue of liberties. You are the one challenging me please provide an example. Any example will do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Typical_08

No, you said you were about as liberal as they come.

---

Yup sure did but I also said earlier in my response to mainbutter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egapal

These things are all pretty subtle and I would say that I am in many ways a libertarian as well.

---

Yes I know the message I quoted was not to me. I was attempting to figure out what exactly you are. You can not claim to be a liberal and a libertarian at the same time. They are two completely different belief sets.

If you do in fact stand for more personal freedom, less governmental intervention in some things. And more states rights, then you are most definitely not a liberal. That would make you a blue dog democrat. Or maybe a libertarian. But not a liberal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Typical_08

Yes I know the message I quoted was not to me. I was attempting to figure out what exactly you are. You can not claim to be a liberal and a libertarian at the same time. They are two completely different belief sets.

If you do in fact stand for more personal freedom, less governmental intervention in some things. And more states rights, then you are most definitely not a liberal. That would make you a blue dog democrat. Or maybe a libertarian. But not a liberal.

---

I am seriously going to need some sited references then cause I see no problem with being both a liberal and a libertarian. Please give me an a single example of how being a liberal prohibits me from calling myself a libertarian or visa versa. And once again Blue Dog Democrats are a subset of a political party. I am not claiming to be part of any political party. I am merely describing my political beliefs. Again not claiming to be part of any political party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

Google is your friend.

Strange how some threads develop, from "kids need beer" to "political discussion extravaganza" and even more strange that "communism" still is an issue in a country where "communists" never had, have or will have the possibilty to come into power by election and even less by civil uprising.
Russia went red by a civil war against a Zar, who did not care if half of his population starved, the people there had a reason to fight and high hopes in the communists (they were uneducated farmers and workers and some idealistic intellectuals, who forgot that humans are humans), the communists came to power in a war not by election. I do not think that the people in the down south or in the corn belt will (or even ever thought of to) grab their guns and storm D.C. to turn the U.S. in a communist country. No country I can remember turned Red by "free elections", there always have been something other involved, civil war, russian intervention etc. (Not to mention that some countrys who turned slight pink rapidly had big trouble with some intervention by CIA trained guerilla or worse, Chile for example)
The worst result of the anti-communist hysteria that broke out back then, was the election of a guy called Hitler (some might remember) who first promised to get rid of the communist danger (though he had the jews in the back of his mind).
And in the U.S. happened a quite odd witch hunt for "communists" in the 50s, that turned a lot of peoples life to the worse, just because they had some ideals (McCarthy).
Sorry for that off topic, but I always get a little bit hot when I feel that some people try to stamp certain political statements or beliefs "communist" and by doing so turning them "wrong", there is some more backup needed in my eyes.
By the way I think everyone should be allowed to do anything, as long he neither hurts bystanders nor the community (in every form) and on the other hand I see the need that a Goverment should care at least for a home, food and proper (no not just proper, the best) medical support for every citizen...
Cheers and happy drinking for all who are allowed to and to the others: DON`T DO IT....:colbert:

NO, I don't need anymore kiddies hanging out in my bar drinking their light beers and wine coolers and tutti fruiti cocktails. They should go back to drinking in their cars and underneath the bleachers at the football field where they belong. :O:O:O:O:O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKExotics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian

Google is your friend.

---

Yup, still sticking by my statements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smith285

Actually, that would be a democracy ;)

A republic has the population vote people into office, and then those people make the laws, which is why it's so important to know the character and stances of the people you are voting into office.

Also, it is technically up to each state to determine the drinking age, but it was agreed upon by all the states to make it 21 across the board.

---

If you want to get technical, the US is a democratic republic. The only direct voting we do is for the president and local elections....all of our laws, etc...we vote for Senators, Congressmen, Representative for some committee, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egapal

I am not claiming to be part of any political party. I am merely describing my political beliefs. Again not claiming to be part of any political party.

---

Very well then. But as libertarians and liberals are essentially polar opposites, you can not honestly claim to be both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Typical_08

Very well then. But as libertarians and liberals are essentially polar opposites, you can not honestly claim to be both.

---

If they are such polar opposite then give me an example, any example at all of conflicting core beliefs. One sited example and should be easy to supply.

Brady ban, foreign policy, governmental spending, welfare. Should I continue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Typical_08

Brady ban, foreign policy, governmental spending, welfare. Should I continue?

---

Man what do people have against specific sited examples. I will go a head and assume you made an argument that the liberal in me should be for the Brady Bill and the libertarian against. This is not an example of how the two are polar opposites but the Brady Bill is a good example of where my liberal and libertarian sides came to odds. I have to say that in the end my liberal side won out and I decided that I support it. Owning guns is a right and making someone wait 5 days is not denying them that right. In its current form don't have to wait but do have an on the spot background check. As it turns out I do believe that anyone who wanted a gun and needed it in less than 5 days is exactly the person I think should have to wait. Foreign policy, government spending and welfare are about the furthest things from sited examples as you could get so I am going to make this my last post. In closing many people have said that I am not a typical liberal and that one thing I say or do is really conservative. I often come back and say no that's libertarian. These ideals rarely come into conflict for me so I have to whole heartedly disagree with your stance that they are polar opposites. Do we need welfare reform, sure. But I believe its necessary. I think its wrong that we provide more for our prisoners than we do for our citizens. That's a big yes to we should lower the drinking age to 18.

This looks like a pretty off track post but in light of things getting back on and not reading much of what was said after seeing the political stand points of members. I voted no to drinking at 18. I'm not 21 yet and of course being a teen I drink. I also do not drink and drive which is what I think we would see much more of. I feel a high percent of the US population should have their license revoked and a stiff kick in the rump. People on phones, putting on make up, left lane bandits, just jack @--es in general. Giving US teens the privilege of having a 0.08 alcohol percent is just too irresponsible. Some people should be barred from reproducing, legalizing younger alcohol ages would just give more teens an excuse as to why they got pregnant upsetting PTA mothers everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidG

This looks like a pretty off track post but in light of things getting back on and not reading much of what was said after seeing the political stand points of members. I voted no to drinking at 18. I'm not 21 yet and of course being a teen I drink. I also do not drink and drive which is what I think we would see much more of. I feel a high percent of the US population should have their license revoked and a stiff kick in the rump. People on phones, putting on make up, left lane bandits, just jack @--es in general. Giving US teens the privilege of having a 0.08 alcohol percent is just too irresponsible. Some people should be barred from reproducing, legalizing younger alcohol ages would just give more teens an excuse as to why they got pregnant upsetting PTA mothers everywhere.

---

Well, I don't drink. I'm a teen. Neither do all my friends.
Why? It's illegal, and pointless. We can have a lot more fun without drinking and drugs, and still be the responsible, respectable ones in the end.
I agree with the rest of your post though, just thought I'd comment on that. It bothers me when people say that because it gives adults a reason to believe all teens drink and do drugs, which is false, yet even the innocent ones are suspected most of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Egapal

Foreign policy, government spending and welfare are about the furthest things from sited examples as you could get so

---

Please explain. Liberals and libertarians are total opposites on these issues.