Actually, placing age restrictions on arbitrary individual acts (Drinking, smoking, driving, etc) negates the fact that many people at 21 are not yet adults. Being an adult is much more about attitude, than it is about age. I've known 15yr old boys who were already "men" and I've know 50 and 60yr olds who will never achieve that status. (Can anyone say our "Alpha Male" pres and VP of the 1990's?)
Unfortunately, is our new age "non-judgemental" society we cant give a test of some sort to determine status of whether or not a person has become a "man" or "woman" because that would be too arbitrary, and may offend the tender sensibilities of the self-esteem of someones precious inner child. The most destructive five word phrase to ever enter the american lexicon is the haughty rejoinder "WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE?"
The idea that age(or lack thereof) can be a valid defense for not having to be held accountable for the freely made choices people make in their life. When we as a society are willing to hold the 15yr old drunk driver to the same standard as the 45 yr old drunk, then we are ready to return to the principle of personal responsibility as envisioned by our founders.
They will never understand how much they "need" AL and TX. because tyranny ( where we are heading at high speed) needs a bogeyman to occupy the minds and efforts of the citizenry in order to stay in power. be it internal or external matters not. N.Korea has S.Korea and Japan. Iran has Isreal and the Great Satin. Zimbabwe has there White Population, etc etc, ad nauseum.
Why to you think Homeland Security is targeting the "Right wing extremists" of the Tea Parties???If you can't find an external threat, then you must manufacture any threat that makes itself available.
Yet another reason not to fly. After all, since we are all potential terrorists, thus not able to carry even a pocket knife or bottle of soda on the plain (wouldn't want the nasty "little people" to be able to stay hydrated or defend them selves - that the job for big daddy government) having to show the status of my pedicure, and now this. guess I'll stick to ground travel.
Which just goes to show how addicted so many of us are to the OPiuM (Other Peoples Money) that the pushers in congress have been dishing out since the turn of the century (20th century, that is) An addict cares not for such trivialities as good or evil, right and wrong. All an addict cares for is their next fix.
Because We, in our pursuit of getting a $20 shirt for $10 wish it to be so. Manufacturers dont spend all that money to move plants off shore, unless their customers want them too, (by buying their cheaper competitors goods made in China, Mexico, Honduras, etc,etc, ad nauseum). We need to understand the cost, the true cost, of what aour pursuit of a "bargain" is costing us.
You know, the idea of putting drug abusers in stocks in the public square, (or the food court at the mall) strikes me as a possible solution. Perhaps its time to quit holding the addict as blameless in the drug problem. (you know, peer pressure is a powerful motivator for changing behaivior)
Just a thought. As I look at many of the posts here, i see some good ideas, but I also see many cases of espousing that the government institute changes in programs , or start new programs. Perhaps we really need to ask ourselves if the entire program is constitutional., Or we are asking that we get the powerful arm of the government to do for us that which we, as free people are supposed to do for ourselves. (term-limits, demanding competancy tests or virtuousness from on elected officials etc) In many cases we already have the mechanisms to remedy the problem, if we but get up off our gloriously fat fundaments and do so.
I think the idea is to return to a limited,small federal gov't whose power to restrict the freedom of the citizenry is strictly limited, and not to change it to a big government that agrees with our point of view.
Your 1st idea only makes sense if you believe the President is supposed to be an elected King. The founding fathers wanted the president to be a weak office in all matters domestic. The power for domestic issues is supposed to reside in the peoples representatives, and the President is to only act as a check upon that power through the use of a veto.
on your 2nd issue, that is supposed to be what elections and campaigns are for. it is up to You, the citizen, to make that ascertation BEFORE you vote.
So, I guess storming their office, dragging their sorry butts out into the street, then tar and feather them and run'em outta town on a rail is a bit excessive, eh??
But how do you do that?? The devil IS in the details. (After all, if we inflate the heck out of our currency, and pay off the debt with the inflated dollars, that would work, Of course, we would then be a country, like Kenya, or Nigeria, that no other country would trust.)..
Personally, I prefer the Gingrich plan from 1991. Constitutional amendment saying the govt can only spend this year an amount equal to that which was taken in form all sources the previous year. Any extra goes to pay the principle on the national debt, till its all payed for.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Contraption