Old enough to fly a Blackhawk Helicopter; Old enough to Drink a BeerFrom Eric Dondero:
The Savannah Morning News is reporting that conservative Republican Congressman Jack Kingston, is introducing legislation to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18 for active duty Military Personnel. The article - "Kingston: Lower drinking age for soldiers; Congressman sponsors bill to let servicemen younger than 21 drink beer or wine on post" Sept. 2.
If 18 is old enough to lift a weapon in defense of your country, U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston says, it's old enough to lift a cold beer on base.Continuing:
The Savannah Republican has introduced legislation that would let service members younger than 21 drink beer and wine at post restaurants and clubs.
People as young as 18 may enlist but now must be 21 or older to consume alcoholic beverages on post.
"There they are in their rucksacks," he said. "And they're going off to operate Abrams tanks and Black Hawk helicopters and squeeze the triggers on their M-4 rifles.Kingston further told WTOC TV Channel 11 - Savannah that not allowing under-21 Combat Vets the right to drink a beer on base is an "insult":
"We tell them they're responsible enough to do that and risk their lives, but not responsible enough to have a beer with their steak on post. I think that's an insult."
"From time to time, I have had the honor saying goodbye to Fort Stewart soldiers as they're leaving the Tarmac and they're 19 years old. They're going to the Middle East to kill people. They're going to be driving tanks. They're going to be flying helicopters. If they're in Kings Bay, they're going to be in submarines, and yet we won't let them drink when they're on base. It doesn't make sense. It's an insult to soldiers," he said.Blue Dog Democrat Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi has already signed on as a co-sponsor. Fellow Georgia Republican Cong. Jack Barrow is expected to also sign on shortly.
20 Bloviations:
He should try to lower the drinking age for all. Soldiers fight so that everyone can have equal rights, not so that they can get special privileges.
Bullshit Mother Fucker!!
Soldiers and other Military SHOULD ABSOLUTELY HAVE SPECIAL PRIVLEDGES.
They are putting their life on the line. What the fuck have you done for your country?
You're just jealous, cause they're protecting our country, and you're too much of a lazy fuck and a coward to do the same.
Fuck you! Get off of my blog Anonymous asshole.
Eric,
where in the Constitution does it say that military members should have special privileges?
So, those who serve in the Military deserve no gratitude 'eh there Bint?
They're just as equal as the fat slob who never served, sitting on his couch all day long, munching on Cheetohs, watching Jerry Springer, and collecting a Government paycheck cause of his "disability" huh?
"where in the Constitution does it say that military members should have special privileges?
Right after where is says they can shoot people with machine guns, you pathetic dumbass.
I would say Soldiers are probably held to a higher standard than the rest of us and in fact have more restriction put on them as well. I don't know of any special privileges, other than the PX. :) My Dad always said he learned about three things in the military: Smoking, Drinking and Women. It must have been quite a time.
Try pulling someone over and writing them a ticket if you're just a salesman. It sucks that I don't have the "special privilege" some Sheriff's Deputy has. I'm sure there's nothing in the constitution about that either. hoho
Tell moron that serving one's country *is* a special privilege.
Military service is also an extraordinary risk, one that doesn't show-up in the Bill of Rights.
Where is moron on the denial of basic civil rights to servicemen - typified by the Demos constant screwing with military votes? Servicemen aren't "members" as in a frikin' club. Under Demos and liberals, they're second-class.
"Soldiers and other Military SHOULD ABSOLUTELY HAVE SPECIAL PRIVILEGES."
Yes. Hell, I'd settle for PARITY - just respect their voting rights -
but I agree that servicemen deserve far more.
The authority a cop has isn’t a privilege, it’s a responsibility. If it is a privilege, then I would say they probably abuse their responsibilities.
Yeah, whenever I see some depitty outside of his jurisdiction bookin' ass up the road like the woods are on fire and passing me like I'm sitting still knowing he has no worries about being pulled over for speeding because of that unwritten rule by which all government types abide, I think about responsibilities and such.
Yes, and if he hits someone and kills them, and all he is doing is going to a bar to get a blow job, I am sure he'll be just fine. May be that works in Mayberry, but not in the city. Everything action has consequences. Saying someone has privilege implies they may act with impunity. That opens the door for all sorts of corrupt behavior. In that light, if a cop operates from the standpoint they have to be responsible with the authority granted them by us, then that is a good thing. If they see it as a privilege, that is a totally different mindset.
Eric,
"So, those who serve in the Military deserve no gratitude 'eh there Bint?"
So, you really don't believe that we should stick to what the Constitution states, eh there Eric?
"They're just as equal as the fat slob who never served, sitting on his couch all day long, munching on Cheetohs, watching Jerry Springer, and collecting a Government paycheck cause of his "disability" huh?"
According to the Constitution, yep! That's about right. Now, if you don't like that fact, then you're basically arguing against everything that this nation supposedly stands for.
Chuck,
"Right after where is says they can shoot people with machine guns, you pathetic dumbass."
Since it doesn't say that either you're proving my point, you festering ass-boil.
Chuck,
"Try pulling someone over and writing them a ticket if you're just a salesman."
No citizen is entitled to issue tickets. Even those who are police officers are only allowed to do this on behalf of our government. If you want to argue that military personnel should be allowed to drink on behalf of our government, then you'll have to show how drinking has something to do with carrying out the proper functions of the state. Good luck with that!
Ran,
"Tell moron that serving one's country *is* a special privilege."
Wrong. It's something that absolutely everyone can do. And when everyone can do it, it isn't special nor is it a privilege.
"Where is moron on the denial of basic civil rights to servicemen - typified by the Demos constant screwing with military votes?"
Since when did you start caring about the denial of basic civil rights? Either everyone deserves them or no one does. You can't have it both ways, shit-for-brains.
"Servicemen aren't "members" as in a frikin' club."
Feel free to look up the meaning of the word "member". If someone isn't a member of the military, then they aren't a serviceman.
"I agree that servicemen deserve far more."
The Constitution certainly doesn't entitle them to any more than the rest of us deserve.
Chuck:
Should this guy get special treatment because he's privileged? There's nothing like authority.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20100811/NEWS02/100811007/0/LIVING/Cop-cited-in-accident-turns-himself-in
Yes. They should double his sentence.
Ran,
"Tell moron that serving one's country *is* a special privilege."
"Wrong. It's something that absolutely everyone can do. And when everyone can do it, it isn't special nor is it a privilege."
No... It is a privilege in that it is in the service of America. And no, not just anyone has the abilities or moral stamina or the public record to serve. Feel free to apply to any branch of the service and find out for yourself.
"Where is moron on the denial of basic civil rights to servicemen - typified by the Demos constant screwing with military votes?"
"Since when did you start caring about the denial of basic civil rights? Either everyone deserves them or no one does. You can't have it both ways, shit-for-brains."
Don't avoid the truth: The Demos regularly screw with servicemen's votes - it's a time honored MO.
"Servicemen aren't "members" as in a frikin' club."
"Feel free to look up the meaning of the word "member". If someone isn't a member of the military, then they aren't a serviceman."
It seems rather a "club" by your attitude that "absolutely everyone" can serve. Again, go apply somewhere.
"I agree that servicemen deserve far more."
"The Constitution certainly doesn't entitle them to any more than the rest of us deserve."
Bullshit. The Constitution is NOT ABOUT "entitlements", moron. It is about the limits of the powers of government. GO READ IT. The Constitution doesn't limit servicemens' risk to life and limb - risks taken so that you can come here and freely spit on them. Do you see a constitutional limit on any accommodation or privilege we might offer? Where is it - in the Good n' Plenty Clause?
You know, moron, it would help your cause if you did your homework before posting here.
Eric - my post of earlier today got zapped.
The substantive issue is this: The Constitution is NOT ABOUT ENTITLEMENTS. It is about placing strict limits on government's powers to encroach upon individual liberty.
The Constitution DOES NOT DISCUSS PRIVILEGES, let alone who is entitled to which privileges.
It helps to have done one's homework prior to posting here.
Post a Comment