The Oldiesfreak Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts III

[Oldiesfreak1854]

You know he was pro choice, right?

Yes, but he was also a champion of civil rights, just like our party's early leaders were, and that outweighs any position he took on abortion in my mind.

He was also a champion of sending a lot of young black men to prison with his enactment of the strictest (and dumbest) drug laws in the country up to that point, so that kind of cancels out the whole "big civil rights advocate" in my mind.

Especially because a lot of young white men probably went to prison under those laws as well.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

You know he was pro choice, right?

Yes, but he was also a champion of civil rights, just like our party's early leaders were, and that outweighs any position he took on abortion in my mind.

He was also a champion of sending a lot of young black men to prison with his enactment of the strictest (and dumbest) drug laws in the country up to that point, so that kind of cancels out the whole "big civil rights advocate" in my mind.

Especially because a lot of young white men probably went to prison under those laws as well.

This is not an absurd, ignorant, or bad post in any meaningful way.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

You know he was pro choice, right?

Yes, but he was also a champion of civil rights, just like our party's early leaders were, and that outweighs any position he took on abortion in my mind.

He was also a champion of sending a lot of young black men to prison with his enactment of the strictest (and dumbest) drug laws in the country up to that point, so that kind of cancels out the whole "big civil rights advocate" in my mind.

Especially because a lot of young white men probably went to prison under those laws as well.

[TNF]

You know he was pro choice, right?

Yes, but he was also a champion of civil rights, just like our party's early leaders were, and that outweighs any position he took on abortion in my mind.

He was also a champion of sending a lot of young black men to prison with his enactment of the strictest (and dumbest) drug laws in the country up to that point, so that kind of cancels out the whole "big civil rights advocate" in my mind.

Especially because a lot of young white men probably went to prison under those laws as well.

[traininthedistance]

18 as a purchase age, no actual drinking minimum.  The best way to prevent unhealthy relationships with alcohol is for parents to expose kids to booze themselves, in moderation- that way it's not some sort of forbidden fruit.

FWIW I was 16 when I first had alcohol and that seems about "right".*

As for the scourge of drunk driving, the obvious solution is to raise the driving age instead.   Maybe start introducing learner's permits at 18, and don't issue full licenses until 21.  (I would also consider raising the age to serve in the military or to own firearms to 21, along with driving- the privilege of operating deadly machinery is not a right in the way that votin' or boozin' is, and really does need to be only entrusted to people who have demonstrated sufficient maturity.  Sorry folks.)

*I would not necessarily oppose a purchase minimum of 16, but it would have to be coupled with raising the driving age for me to support it; and I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for teenagers to be able to be exposed to alcohol before they're allowed to buy it themselves.

Terrible parts in bold.

I'm aware that my specific proposal regarding the driving age is more idealistic than practical, and I'd be happy to have an open discussion about that- keeping in mind, of course, that "automobile ownership" and "mobility" are far from the same thing.  (I'm aware that this point is not obvious to many- and the fact that it is so obscured is the first problem we have to tackle.)

But it is an indisputable fact that cars are indeed deadly machinery (more deadly than firearms in fact), and thus need to be regulated and restricted to protect the life and limb of both its operators and victims.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

18 as a purchase age, no actual drinking minimum.  The best way to prevent unhealthy relationships with alcohol is for parents to expose kids to booze themselves, in moderation- that way it's not some sort of forbidden fruit.

FWIW I was 16 when I first had alcohol and that seems about "right".*

As for the scourge of drunk driving, the obvious solution is to raise the driving age instead.   Maybe start introducing learner's permits at 18, and don't issue full licenses until 21.  (I would also consider raising the age to serve in the military or to own firearms to 21, along with driving- the privilege of operating deadly machinery is not a right in the way that votin' or boozin' is, and really does need to be only entrusted to people who have demonstrated sufficient maturity.  Sorry folks.)

*I would not necessarily oppose a purchase minimum of 16, but it would have to be coupled with raising the driving age for me to support it; and I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for teenagers to be able to be exposed to alcohol before they're allowed to buy it themselves.

Terrible parts in bold.

I'm aware that my specific proposal regarding the driving age is more idealistic than practical, and I'd be happy to have an open discussion about that- keeping in mind, of course, that "automobile ownership" and "mobility" are far from the same thing.  (I'm aware that this point is not obvious to many- and the fact that it is so obscured is the first problem we have to tackle.)

But it is an indisputable fact that cars are indeed deadly machinery (more deadly than firearms in fact), and thus need to be regulated and restricted to protect the life and limb of both its operators and victims.

The main problem here is you are basically forcing people to live with their parents until 21 unless not in college, especially as a learner's permit is basically worthless unless you live with your parents. I'd have no choice but to go home every summer in college until I was 21.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

18 as a purchase age, no actual drinking minimum.  The best way to prevent unhealthy relationships with alcohol is for parents to expose kids to booze themselves, in moderation- that way it's not some sort of forbidden fruit.

FWIW I was 16 when I first had alcohol and that seems about "right".*

As for the scourge of drunk driving, the obvious solution is to raise the driving age instead.   Maybe start introducing learner's permits at 18, and don't issue full licenses until 21.  (I would also consider raising the age to serve in the military or to own firearms to 21, along with driving- the privilege of operating deadly machinery is not a right in the way that votin' or boozin' is, and really does need to be only entrusted to people who have demonstrated sufficient maturity.  Sorry folks.)

*I would not necessarily oppose a purchase minimum of 16, but it would have to be coupled with raising the driving age for me to support it; and I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for teenagers to be able to be exposed to alcohol before they're allowed to buy it themselves.

Terrible parts in bold.

I'm aware that my specific proposal regarding the driving age is more idealistic than practical, and I'd be happy to have an open discussion about that- keeping in mind, of course, that "automobile ownership" and "mobility" are far from the same thing.  (I'm aware that this point is not obvious to many- and the fact that it is so obscured is the first problem we have to tackle.)

But it is an indisputable fact that cars are indeed deadly machinery (more deadly than firearms in fact), and thus need to be regulated and restricted to protect the life and limb of both its operators and victims.

The main problem here is you are basically forcing people to live with their parents until 21 unless not in college, especially as a learner's permit is basically worthless unless you live with your parents. I'd have no choice but to go home every summer in college until I was 21.

Considering how interested in improving public transit traininthedistance is I think he's probably already contemplated that and has long-term solutions in mind, although if one raised the driving age first that would be the short-term result, yeah.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

18 as a purchase age, no actual drinking minimum.  The best way to prevent unhealthy relationships with alcohol is for parents to expose kids to booze themselves, in moderation- that way it's not some sort of forbidden fruit.

FWIW I was 16 when I first had alcohol and that seems about "right".*

As for the scourge of drunk driving, the obvious solution is to raise the driving age instead.   Maybe start introducing learner's permits at 18, and don't issue full licenses until 21.  (I would also consider raising the age to serve in the military or to own firearms to 21, along with driving- the privilege of operating deadly machinery is not a right in the way that votin' or boozin' is, and really does need to be only entrusted to people who have demonstrated sufficient maturity.  Sorry folks.)

*I would not necessarily oppose a purchase minimum of 16, but it would have to be coupled with raising the driving age for me to support it; and I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for teenagers to be able to be exposed to alcohol before they're allowed to buy it themselves.

Terrible parts in bold.

I'm aware that my specific proposal regarding the driving age is more idealistic than practical, and I'd be happy to have an open discussion about that- keeping in mind, of course, that "automobile ownership" and "mobility" are far from the same thing.  (I'm aware that this point is not obvious to many- and the fact that it is so obscured is the first problem we have to tackle.)

But it is an indisputable fact that cars are indeed deadly machinery (more deadly than firearms in fact), and thus need to be regulated and restricted to protect the life and limb of both its operators and victims.

The main problem here is you are basically forcing people to live with their parents until 21 unless not in college, especially as a learner's permit is basically worthless unless you live with your parents. I'd have no choice but to go home every summer in college until I was 21.

Considering how interested in improving public transit traininthedistance is I think he's probably already contemplated that and has long-term solutions in mind, although if one raised the driving age first that would be the short-term result, yeah.

Public transit from Bismarck, ND to Mankato, MN would be pretty tricky.

[traininthedistance]

18 as a purchase age, no actual drinking minimum.  The best way to prevent unhealthy relationships with alcohol is for parents to expose kids to booze themselves, in moderation- that way it's not some sort of forbidden fruit.

FWIW I was 16 when I first had alcohol and that seems about "right".*

As for the scourge of drunk driving, the obvious solution is to raise the driving age instead.   Maybe start introducing learner's permits at 18, and don't issue full licenses until 21.  (I would also consider raising the age to serve in the military or to own firearms to 21, along with driving- the privilege of operating deadly machinery is not a right in the way that votin' or boozin' is, and really does need to be only entrusted to people who have demonstrated sufficient maturity.  Sorry folks.)

*I would not necessarily oppose a purchase minimum of 16, but it would have to be coupled with raising the driving age for me to support it; and I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for teenagers to be able to be exposed to alcohol before they're allowed to buy it themselves.

Terrible parts in bold.

I'm aware that my specific proposal regarding the driving age is more idealistic than practical, and I'd be happy to have an open discussion about that- keeping in mind, of course, that "automobile ownership" and "mobility" are far from the same thing.  (I'm aware that this point is not obvious to many- and the fact that it is so obscured is the first problem we have to tackle.)

But it is an indisputable fact that cars are indeed deadly machinery (more deadly than firearms in fact), and thus need to be regulated and restricted to protect the life and limb of both its operators and victims.

The main problem here is you are basically forcing people to live with their parents until 21 unless not in college, especially as a learner's permit is basically worthless unless you live with your parents. I'd have no choice but to go home every summer in college until I was 21.

Considering how interested in improving public transit traininthedistance is I think he's probably already contemplated that and has long-term solutions in mind, although if one raised the driving age first that would be the short-term result, yeah.

I'm aware that a number of long-term solutions would be necessary to improve mobility for teenagers and other classes of people that can't or won't drive (the disabled, the elderly, the poor, younger children, the conscientious objectors, etc. etc. etc.).  But- those solutions are already desperately necessary, and the short-term results alluded to here are vastly oversold in any case.  If history is any guide, any proposed restriction on driving (of any kind) tends to attract vehement, nasty, unhinged opposition and cries of doom... but when/if it goes through, nothing bad happens, and things are often better than before (very often even for drivers- which it must be emphasized again should not be identified with the populace as a whole).  So it's a bit of a Chicken Little attitude, as far as I'm concerned.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I still have yet to hear how it'd be possible for me to live away from home during the summers until I was 21 though, or how I could learn how to drive living so far away from my parents with a learner's permit even if I got such a job. Or how I'd be able to travel to Minneapolis and Sioux Falls while in college to go to all the shows I did.

[traininthedistance]

I still have yet to hear how it'd be possible for me to live away from home during the summers until I was 21 though

Well, depends where you live.  I know there are places where people manage it; I'll grant that we need to do more to improve mobility in areas where that's not the case.

or how I could learn how to drive living so far away from my parents with a learner's permit even if I got such a job.

While it's certainly easier and more convenient to learn driving from one's parents, it doesn't follow that having to learn on one's own is impossible, or that there wouldn't be ample resources for doing so wherever you lived- especially if you're in an area where cars are more necessary.  Otherwise nobody whose parents didn't drive would ever have picked it up.

Or how I'd be able to travel to Minneapolis and Sioux Falls while in college to go to all the shows I did.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

18 as a purchase age, no actual drinking minimum.  The best way to prevent unhealthy relationships with alcohol is for parents to expose kids to booze themselves, in moderation- that way it's not some sort of forbidden fruit.

FWIW I was 16 when I first had alcohol and that seems about "right".*

As for the scourge of drunk driving, the obvious solution is to raise the driving age instead.   Maybe start introducing learner's permits at 18, and don't issue full licenses until 21.  (I would also consider raising the age to serve in the military or to own firearms to 21, along with driving- the privilege of operating deadly machinery is not a right in the way that votin' or boozin' is, and really does need to be only entrusted to people who have demonstrated sufficient maturity.  Sorry folks.)

*I would not necessarily oppose a purchase minimum of 16, but it would have to be coupled with raising the driving age for me to support it; and I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for teenagers to be able to be exposed to alcohol before they're allowed to buy it themselves.

Terrible parts in bold.

I'm aware that my specific proposal regarding the driving age is more idealistic than practical, and I'd be happy to have an open discussion about that- keeping in mind, of course, that "automobile ownership" and "mobility" are far from the same thing.  (I'm aware that this point is not obvious to many- and the fact that it is so obscured is the first problem we have to tackle.)

But it is an indisputable fact that cars are indeed deadly machinery (more deadly than firearms in fact), and thus need to be regulated and restricted to protect the life and limb of both its operators and victims.

The main problem here is you are basically forcing people to live with their parents until 21 unless not in college, especially as a learner's permit is basically worthless unless you live with your parents. I'd have no choice but to go home every summer in college until I was 21.

Considering how interested in improving public transit traininthedistance is I think he's probably already contemplated that and has long-term solutions in mind, although if one raised the driving age first that would be the short-term result, yeah.

Public transit from Bismarck, ND to Mankato, MN would be pretty tricky.

Main line from Chicago to Seattle or Calgary or both, with lots of branches?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Walker...

I'm not voting for a murderer.

You're "endorsing" the wife of a war criminal for president, aren't you?

If we were using that standard 90% of the country would be war criminals.

lolol

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

18 as a purchase age, no actual drinking minimum.  The best way to prevent unhealthy relationships with alcohol is for parents to expose kids to booze themselves, in moderation- that way it's not some sort of forbidden fruit.

FWIW I was 16 when I first had alcohol and that seems about "right".*

As for the scourge of drunk driving, the obvious solution is to raise the driving age instead.   Maybe start introducing learner's permits at 18, and don't issue full licenses until 21.  (I would also consider raising the age to serve in the military or to own firearms to 21, along with driving- the privilege of operating deadly machinery is not a right in the way that votin' or boozin' is, and really does need to be only entrusted to people who have demonstrated sufficient maturity.  Sorry folks.)

*I would not necessarily oppose a purchase minimum of 16, but it would have to be coupled with raising the driving age for me to support it; and I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for teenagers to be able to be exposed to alcohol before they're allowed to buy it themselves.

Terrible parts in bold.

I'm aware that my specific proposal regarding the driving age is more idealistic than practical, and I'd be happy to have an open discussion about that- keeping in mind, of course, that "automobile ownership" and "mobility" are far from the same thing.  (I'm aware that this point is not obvious to many- and the fact that it is so obscured is the first problem we have to tackle.)

But it is an indisputable fact that cars are indeed deadly machinery (more deadly than firearms in fact), and thus need to be regulated and restricted to protect the life and limb of both its operators and victims.

The main problem here is you are basically forcing people to live with their parents until 21 unless not in college, especially as a learner's permit is basically worthless unless you live with your parents. I'd have no choice but to go home every summer in college until I was 21.

Considering how interested in improving public transit traininthedistance is I think he's probably already contemplated that and has long-term solutions in mind, although if one raised the driving age first that would be the short-term result, yeah.

Public transit from Bismarck, ND to Mankato, MN would be pretty tricky.

Main line from Chicago to Seattle or Calgary or both, with lots of branches?

The Mankato airport basically only ever does flights to the MSP airport, with maybe a once a day flight to another smaller regional one like Sioux Falls, and the Bismarck one is basically the same (I think it has only two real routes, MSP and Denver.) Not surprising but can result in some annoying overlays. Of course as I noted in the other thread most people from Mankato don't even bother with the airport and it's mostly just for commercial use, if you have to fly somewhere else you just drive up to MSP and go directly from there. One time my job had a server go out and the distribution center they got them from was in Edina, so rather than wait for a shipment or flight they just sent up a couple employees to drive up there the same day, pick one up and bring it back, with the view it wasn't that big of a deal because it was just four hours out of an 8-hour day.

But I did take a Greyhound a couple times. (Which basically just functions as you described.) The problem is this is typically how the schedule would run:

10AM: Leave Mankato
Noon: Arrive in Minneapolis
Noon-2PM: Hang around the bus station.
2PM: Leave for Bismarck.
2PM-11PM: Sit on the bus while it goes through all these rural stops often off the main highway.
11PM: Arrive in Bismarck.

...While I just drove I'd make it to Bismarck around 7PM.

[H. Ross Peron]

Tough choice between McKinley and Harding. Whilst I'm not too keen on McKinley's violation of Spain's imperial holdings in Cuba, his generally sound domestic policy and character puts him ahead of Harding, whose general immorality I find rather distasteful.

Not to apologize for the U.S. taking Cuba from Spain here, but what "right" did Spain have to control and oppress the people of Cuba?

By simple virtue of the fact that Cuba had been an integral part of the Spanish Empire for centuries, and was a source of both economic and military (twas a good place to use to train troops) benefits for the Spanish state. Not that, neccessarily, I fault McKinley's reasoning for doing what he did, in the interests of the United States, but nevertheless, I feel that it was fairly unneccessary for Spain to lose Cuba, given that it's loss did some pretty grievous political damage to the Spanish state and monarchy. As for the oppression, well, it is undeniable. Nevertheless, such repression was a legitimate response to the bad behaviour of the Cuban populace, so I cannot fault the Spanish for that.

[TNF]

They certainly have some influence over the Democratic Party... but over National politics as whole their influence is limited.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=186134.0

[TNF]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=186134.0

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=186134.0

Save time and just put this in the deluge: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=13.0

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=186134.0

Are you some sort of Manta Ray supremacist or something?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It isn't totally harmless; legalising it will arguably lead to more people dying as a result of it.

In regards to marijuana.

[MATTROSE94]

Indeed. Let us not forget that she was a Republican politician, which is more important than her being less awful than Ted Cruz.

[IceSpear]

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.html

[Donerail]

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.html

There is a Sage Garden for such things.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

He linked to a 9/11 Truther site, so it's fitting in both.