[39970]

As one who believes that there are far too many laws already I look suspiciously at new ones.



Boy was I wrong! Just because someone is mature enough to kill and die for ones Country at 18 (17 if you're lucky enough to get your parents permission) doesn't mean that they're mature enough to ride to the store without a helmet and not get a beer on a hot day.



Watch out for old Jeb! He was a signatory on The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), he's a NeoCon! Good riddance to the Basturd!



"Council on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys."??? Say what!

 

[39970]

I could go with that but everyone knows that athletic skills peak as teenagers, right? That's why 18 year olds are used, right? I'll bet that "fragging" incidents would go way up though, Men don't make good pawns unless they allow it for one reason or another (an 18 year old may be a Man but I'd think a higher percentage would be at 21). Try to tell a Man that if he doesn't do something then he's not a Man, that works far better with boys.

 

[39970]

[No message]

 

[39970]

"The real reason the military likes 18-19 year olds is because they are easier to condition. In other words 19 year olds will accept orders that 25 year olds would laugh at."



That's where I was trying to go with this. Butterbars would be taking regular a$$whoopin's, at least.



I have long thought that anybody (but most importantly the politicians that vote for it) that believes strongly enough in the need for a War and would commit others to it should be in front line combat units with all male members of their family old enough to vote, as Privates. For the duration. No deferments. No exceptions.



It's galling that the rich people that get richer from "War" face no danger from it. What other than their altruism (cough, cough) would stop these powerful people from encouraging War?

 

[39970]

Thanks, it was good for me too! I crack myself up all the time.

 

[39970]

LOL, good one!