Conservative Political Forum

General Category => Religion Forum => Topic started by: Mountainshield on February 18, 2013, 05:15:05 AM

Title: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Mountainshield on February 18, 2013, 05:15:05 AM
Just wondering about your thoughts considering the consumption of alcohol, in specific beer. Both at personal level and from a generalization level. I'm coming from a biased view here and I'm not about projecting illusion of self superiority because I never drink anymore, I know its perfectly viable to drink/party every weekend and at the same time be an educated responsible citizen.

The party culture in Norway is extremely hard, the frat party style of drinking is popular at age 13 and onwards, and even many friends/coworkers still in their 30's and 40's continue this drunkard style of drinking every weekend. And a weekend without this style of drinking is considered booring. If you say that you don't drink alcohol you are looked at as a freak. Many kids become addicts at young age, many drops out of school or get very low scores due to drinking, many teenage girls get pregnant or get sexually active with drinking at young age etc

I personally think the party lifestyle is very detrimental to society, specifically when you have  a representative government. When the more important aspect of your life is drinking yourself stupid then its a given you will end up with corrupt politicians.

Of course not everyone drinking is consumed by the behavior to the point that subjects not related to having fun is important, but from personal experience and statistical studies there is a significant correlation between the two. Of course the cause-effect can be discussed but the fact that Universities are mainly liberal and the place with most consumption of alcohol/marijuana etc is hardly a coincidence.

There are many biblical reasons for not drinking (Isaiah 5:11, Proverbs 23:20, Romans 13:13, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:18, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) but they all condem drunkeness, and not the actual drinking itself. From this I at least conclude that drinking yourself drunk is a sin, but having enough will to just drink adequate amount of alcohol to not induce drunkeness is acceptable.

Myself I really really enjoy icecold Dutch beer, but usually one can a day. Now though I never drink because of the wife (she hates all alcohol).

Sorry for rambling but to get to my question.

Are you christian or part of any denomination that has explicit views on drinking?
How much do you drink and what is your opinion on party drinking? Also do you see this as negative trend?
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Solar on February 18, 2013, 06:40:08 AM

Of course, like many, I base my opinion on personal experience, and all has been bad, from an alcoholic father to friends over indulging, and I too have overindulged during my youth.
Nothing, not one damned thing good developed from drinking, and the more one drinks, the greater chance that something horrible will ensue.
Then there is the issue of the following day depression, so there is two days of one's life that were completely wasted.
Then there is the risk of addiction, something I thank God for saving me from, though I still enjoy a shot of fine whiskey once in awhile.

This is one of those things that man learned thousands of years ago that can ruin a thriving culture, the reason we have the Ten Commandments, yet we still have the stupid that walk among us (liberals) that want to destroy the rules that bind society, the things we've all agreed upon for centuries, all in a grand experiment.
One that will take us back to the beginning of time, and tribal warfare, or one dictator rule, which ever comes first.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Yawn on February 18, 2013, 06:05:00 PM
Great Britain has the same problem with their youth. Like you said, drinking in moderation is not a sin. Drunkenness is. Who cares what others do or how they perceive you. Like my mom always said, "If your friends jump off a bridge, will you?"

I personally don't drink, because my dad went through my teen years  as a drunk. He sobered up during my later adult years. He was an embarrassing drunk. A father needs to be a MAN and not an embarrassment to his kids.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: JustKari on February 19, 2013, 07:21:28 AM
I have many friends who choose to never drink, because they do not want people to see them purchasing it and assume they are hypocrites.  I don't personally drink, but it isn't because of the sin vs. not sin question, I had a cousin killed by a drunk driver when I was young, whether it is the negative feelings I have about that, or an actual allergy, I don't know, but drinking makes me physically ill, even in very small amounts.  My husband enjoys a drink now and then, I just don't try to join him anymore.

Drunkenness is sin, as you said, that much is clear.  Drinking in and of itself is not.  Though wine was vastly different then, Jesus' first miracle was turning water into wine for a wedding.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Moishe3rd on February 23, 2013, 11:12:31 PM
Well... It depends on the day.  Today being Purim, alcohol consumption is encouraged!
Of course it helps to be Jewish....
But, as this is the first time I have been to this forum in the last hundred years; this is an appropriate topic.
A freilichin Purim to all!
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on February 24, 2013, 03:55:30 AM
I'd probably be considered a heavy drinker by today's standards. 4-5 beers a day after work, (Busch, which is pretty weak), and I'll get pretty lit up on either a Friday or Saturday night, with several whiskey drinks followed by a good bit of beer. It's fun.

During the late 60's and early 70's, I was raised in a neighborhood of responsible middle class people, and the weekends were usually floating parties, particularly in the summer. The beers and drinks would flow, and it would usually involve cooking out. The parents drank, and us kids would ride our bikes or play. Nothing terrible ever happened, and on Monday, everybody went back to work.

So yeah. I get together with friends on the weekend and get intoxicated. We'll have music playing, sometimes a bon fire, play music, and we'll either cook steaks, steam oysters, or some other yummy food. Driving is strictly prohibited, (no that anyone tries it), and we'll take turns spending the night at whoever's house that is having the gathering. We don't get falling down drunk, but I'd be lying if I said we weren't buzzed. Things are usually wrapped up by midnight.

That said, I also know that a lot of people aren't capable of taking a measured and responsible approach to moderate intoxication. If they were, we could take the hardcore libertarian stance, and legalize all drugs tomorrow.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: walkstall on February 24, 2013, 05:51:50 AM
Quote from: Moishe3rd on February 23, 2013, 11:12:31 PM
Well... It depends on the day.  Today being Purim, alcohol consumption is encouraged!
Of course it helps to be Jewish....
But, as this is the first time I have been to this forum in the last hundred years; this is an appropriate topic.
A freilichin Purim to all!

Nice that you could drop in Rabbi. 
Thank you and a freilichin Purim to you and your family and friends young man.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: JustKari on February 24, 2013, 07:31:34 AM
Quote from: Moishe3rd on February 23, 2013, 11:12:31 PM
Well... It depends on the day.  Today being Purim, alcohol consumption is encouraged!
Of course it helps to be Jewish....
But, as this is the first time I have been to this forum in the last hundred years; this is an appropriate topic.
A freilichin Purim to all!

Freilichin Purim and welcome back :)
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on February 24, 2013, 07:36:24 AM
Quote from: Moishe3rd on February 23, 2013, 11:12:31 PM
Well... It depends on the day.  Today being Purim, alcohol consumption is encouraged!
Of course it helps to be Jewish....
But, as this is the first time I have been to this forum in the last hundred years; this is an appropriate topic.
A freilichin Purim to all!

In my case, it helps to be Irish.

Certain things are just expected. :biggrin:
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Mountainshield on February 24, 2013, 07:45:08 AM
Quote from: kramarat on February 24, 2013, 03:55:30 AM
I'd probably be considered a heavy drinker by today's standards. 4-5 beers a day after work, (Busch, which is pretty weak), and I'll get pretty lit up on either a Friday or Saturday night, with several whiskey drinks followed by a good bit of beer. It's fun.

During the late 60's and early 70's, I was raised in a neighborhood of responsible middle class people, and the weekends were usually floating parties, particularly in the summer. The beers and drinks would flow, and it would usually involve cooking out. The parents drank, and us kids would ride our bikes or play. Nothing terrible ever happened, and on Monday, everybody went back to work.

So yeah. I get together with friends on the weekend and get intoxicated. We'll have music playing, sometimes a bon fire, play music, and we'll either cook steaks, steam oysters, or some other yummy food. Driving is strictly prohibited, (no that anyone tries it), and we'll take turns spending the night at whoever's house that is having the gathering. We don't get falling down drunk, but I'd be lying if I said we weren't buzzed. Things are usually wrapped up by midnight.

That said, I also know that a lot of people aren't capable of taking a measured and responsible approach to moderate intoxication. If they were, we could take the hardcore libertarian stance, and legalize all drugs tomorrow.

Enjoy reading the different posts,

Sounds like a wonderfull neighbourhood and community, Norway does not have this community spirit due to low population density. Though we do have church activities that is somewhat similar (but without the alcohol). If the US economy ever recovers I seriously consider emmigrating.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on February 24, 2013, 07:55:12 AM
Quote from: Mountainshield on February 24, 2013, 07:45:08 AM
Enjoy reading the different posts,

Sounds like a wonderfull neighbourhood and community, Norway does not have this community spirit due to low population density. Though we do have church activities that is somewhat similar (but without the alcohol). If the US economy ever recovers I seriously consider emmigrating.

I was raised in a fairly small subdivision out in a pretty rural area. There really wasn't a lot to do, so our parents made their own fun. There was drinking, but for most, there was also church on Sunday. I never associated social drinking with anything bad, but now that I'm older, I've seen the dark side of both alcohol and drugs. They can definitely be bad, but I think the blame lies with the person and their lack of control, not necessarily the substance used. Much like guns don't kill people; alcohol and drugs don't get bad unless they're abused.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Mountainshield on February 24, 2013, 11:44:29 AM
Quote from: kramarat on February 24, 2013, 07:55:12 AM
I was raised in a fairly small subdivision out in a pretty rural area. There really wasn't a lot to do, so our parents made their own fun. There was drinking, but for most, there was also church on Sunday. I never associated social drinking with anything bad, but now that I'm older, I've seen the dark side of both alcohol and drugs. They can definitely be bad, but I think the blame lies with the person and their lack of control, not necessarily the substance used. Much like guns don't kill people; alcohol and drugs don't get bad unless they're abused.

Thats whats so dangerous about socialized healthcare or state subsidized healthcare whatever you want to call it. And this is also something that bothers me ALOT about libertarians-liberals. I agree in the ideal world drugs should be free, but when its the taxpayers who have to put up with the bill, then there is no moral/economic justification for legalization of drugs.

In norway you have government heroin clinics, where if you are a registered heroin addict you can get free heroin and free needles. The justification is that it will lead to less crime, but the problem is not punishing/imprisoning them long enough in the first case. And less crime argument is essentially blackmail/terrorim. Give me money or I will commit crime logic.

Same with alcohol, it's more socially acceptable because of tradition, but when I have to pay for someone else not being able to handle the liquor then he shouldnt have the right to drink in the first place, because he is not a independent citizen, he is dependent on other peoples money.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on February 24, 2013, 12:24:36 PM
Quote from: Mountainshield on February 24, 2013, 11:44:29 AM
Thats whats so dangerous about socialized healthcare or state subsidized healthcare whatever you want to call it. And this is also something that bothers me ALOT about libertarians-liberals. I agree in the ideal world drugs should be free, but when its the taxpayers who have to put up with the bill, then there is no moral/economic justification for legalization of drugs.

In norway you have government heroin clinics, where if you are a registered heroin addict you can get free heroin and free needles. The justification is that it will lead to less crime, but the problem is not punishing/imprisoning them long enough in the first case. And less crime argument is essentially blackmail/terrorim. Give me money or I will commit crime logic.

Same with alcohol, it's more socially acceptable because of tradition, but when I have to pay for someone else not being able to handle the liquor then he shouldnt have the right to drink in the first place, because he is not a independent citizen, he is dependent on other peoples money.

I don't think it's a matter of jail time. Drugs and alcohol have been around for a long time, and there were always a few that got addicted. I think the big problems came along when they, (drugs), were made illegal, which glamorized them and made them far more expensive; combined with the liberal midset that crept in, in which no one is responsible for their own actions, or even their own lives.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Solar on February 24, 2013, 12:31:58 PM
Quote from: kramarat on February 24, 2013, 12:24:36 PM
I don't think it's a matter of jail time. Drugs and alcohol have been around for a long time, and there were always a few that got addicted. I think the big problems came along when they, (drugs), were made illegal, which glamorized them and made them far more expensive; combined with the liberal midset that crept in, in which no one is responsible for their own actions, or even their own lives.
The libertarians in the Haight thought the same thing about the hippies in the 60s, till they trashed the place.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on February 24, 2013, 01:30:50 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 24, 2013, 12:31:58 PM
The libertarians in the Haight thought the same thing about the hippies in the 60s, till they trashed the place.

Yeah. It also turned sour when the hard drugs came into the scene. I don't know the answer. What I do know, is that our laws don't prevent anyone from doing any drug they choose, whenever they want to. If preventing drug use was the goal, it's been a complete failure.

It's too late to turn back the clock, but I think the approach to drugs should have been to shame people out of using them. If drugs were around, (which they already are), and they were looked at as something that losers do, I think less people would use them. Kind of like picking your nose in public. It's not against the law, but most people just don't do it.

Of course, using drugs is yet another thing that the left has worked hard on, to present as cool.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Solar on February 24, 2013, 01:37:43 PM
Quote from: kramarat on February 24, 2013, 01:30:50 PM
Yeah. It also turned sour when the hard drugs came into the scene. I don't know the answer. What I do know, is that our laws don't prevent anyone from doing any drug they choose, whenever they want to. If preventing drug use was the goal, it's been a complete failure.

It's too late to turn back the clock, but I think the approach to drugs should have been to shame people out of using them. If drugs were around, (which they already are), and they were looked at as something that losers do, I think less people would use them. Kind of like picking your nose in public. It's not against the law, but most people just don't do it.

Of course, using drugs is yet another thing that the left has worked hard on, to present as cool.
My point was, it was the LIBertarian view of turning the other cheek to what others do that exacerbated the 60s drug era.
Had they cracked down on the movement early on, like arresting the older hippies introducing the drugs to the teenage girls and returning the girls to their parents.
Who knows, we may not have had a Clinton era scourge on the country in the 90s.

I remember reading an article in the mid 60s where the older guys pushing drugs at the time were admitted Marxists doing the work of the USSR.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on February 24, 2013, 02:07:30 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 24, 2013, 01:37:43 PM
My point was, it was the LIBertarian view of turning the other cheek to what others do that exacerbated the 60s drug era.
Had they cracked down on the movement early on, like arresting the older hippies introducing the drugs to the teenage girls and returning the girls to their parents.
Who knows, we may not have had a Clinton era scourge on the country in the 90s.

I remember reading an article in the mid 60s where the older guys pushing drugs at the time were admitted Marxists doing the work of the USSR.

Maybe they didn't crack down in CA, but they sure did in the rest of the country. When the Nixon administration classified marijuana as a schedule I controlled substance, young kids around the country were being thrown in prison for small amounts...even a single roach. Lives were destroyed.

It backfired. By the time Nixon resigned in shame, a lot of people had run into the arms of the left. It's a hatred for the right, that still continues today.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Solar on February 24, 2013, 03:37:12 PM
Quote from: kramarat on February 24, 2013, 02:07:30 PM
Maybe they didn't crack down in CA, but they sure did in the rest of the country. When the Nixon administration classified marijuana as a schedule I controlled substance, young kids around the country were being thrown in prison for small amounts...even a single roach. Lives were destroyed.

It backfired. By the time Nixon resigned in shame, a lot of people had run into the arms of the left. It's a hatred for the right, that still continues today.
It was a different time, all drugs were viewed with contempt.
Were they wrong? Looking at the state of the country today, Hell no they weren't, but they at least tried to stop it, now we have even bigger issues to be concerned with than the destruction of the American family/culture, we have our very way of life on the precipice of destruction.

No, I don't fault anyone for trying to preserve our culture for future generations. I believe it's safe to say if 1960s America had seen where we are today, they would have made a lot more changes.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on February 24, 2013, 04:17:04 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 24, 2013, 03:37:12 PM
It was a different time, all drugs were viewed with contempt.
Were they wrong? Looking at the state of the country today, Hell no they weren't, but they at least tried to stop it, now we have even bigger issues to be concerned with than the destruction of the American family/culture, we have our very way of life on the precipice of destruction.

No, I don't fault anyone for trying to preserve our culture for future generations. I believe it's safe to say if 1960s America had seen where we are today, they would have made a lot more changes.

We're easing toward disagreeing again. :wink:

Preserving the culture is one thing, but for the most part, the hippies were a bunch of harmless idiots; and Nixon passing laws that hung a felony around their necks and imprisoned many of them for years, (over simple possession), was a really bad idea. He went against what his own advisors told him.

I think that Nixon helped to breed the rabid hatred that we see from the left today. The hippies graduated from college and started taking our schools. It's been a slow progression, but guys like Nixon helped give birth to people like Bill Ayers, and the guy we have sitting in the white house today.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Solar on February 24, 2013, 04:38:02 PM
Quote from: kramarat on February 24, 2013, 04:17:04 PM
We're easing toward disagreeing again. :wink:

Preserving the culture is one thing, but for the most part, the hippies were a bunch of harmless idiots; and Nixon passing laws that hung a felony around their necks and imprisoned many of them for years, (over simple possession), was a really bad idea. He went against what his own advisors told him.

I think that Nixon helped to breed the rabid hatred that we see from the left today. The hippies graduated from college and started taking our schools. It's been a slow progression, but guys like Nixon helped give birth to people like Bill Ayers, and the guy we have sitting in the white house today.
It wasn't Nixon policy, it goes all the way back to 1914, he merely kept it alive, he and Congress both, ignored the recommendations of the Shafer Commission.
But I'm talking about a much earlier time, nearly a whole decade earlier, back when hard drugs were always associated with weed users, the two were virtually inseparable and crime was a known element with those that used drugs.

No, Nixon is not to blame, States like Az had the toughest laws on the books for weed possession, but to put all the blame on one incident in history is kind of silly.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on February 25, 2013, 02:33:12 AM
Quote from: Solar on February 24, 2013, 04:38:02 PM
It wasn't Nixon policy, it goes all the way back to 1914, he merely kept it alive, he and Congress both, ignored the recommendations of the Shafer Commission.
But I'm talking about a much earlier time, nearly a whole decade earlier, back when hard drugs were always associated with weed users, the two were virtually inseparable and crime was a known element with those that used drugs.

No, Nixon is not to blame, States like Az had the toughest laws on the books for weed possession, but to put all the blame on one incident in history is kind of silly.

So it's our culture from the 50's that we should preserve?

Not the moral degradation from the 20's? Or the lawlessness, booze and prostitution that marked the gold rush? Not our culture from when we enslaved people, and bought and sold human flesh?
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Solar on February 25, 2013, 05:17:10 AM
Quote from: kramarat on February 25, 2013, 02:33:12 AM
So it's our culture from the 50's that we should preserve?

Not the moral degradation from the 20's? Or the lawlessness, booze and prostitution that marked the gold rush? Not our culture from when we enslaved people, and bought and sold human flesh?
So what's your point? You blamed Nixon for something he had nothing to do with, granted he was no Conservative, but he didn't do what you claimed.
Society had seen what damage drugs can do to it, and they wanted no part of it, it had been that way for decades.
Now that society is collapsing, you seem to want to simply throw in the towel and claim it's a freedom to abuse ones body?
Is that what I'm getting out of this conversation, that people have a civil right to do any substance, that Govt has no place in upholding the social mores of society?
Give that some serious thought, society is nothing But, social mores and values agreed upon and held together by Govt.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on February 25, 2013, 05:39:30 AM
Quote from: Solar on February 25, 2013, 05:17:10 AM
So what's your point? You blamed Nixon for something he had nothing to do with, granted he was no Conservative, but he didn't do what you claimed.
Society had seen what damage drugs can do to it, and they wanted no part of it, it had been that way for decades.
Now that society is collapsing, you seem to want to simply throw in the towel and claim it's a freedom to abuse ones body?
Is that what I'm getting out of this conversation, that people have a civil right to do any substance, that Govt has no place in upholding the social mores of society?
Give that some serious thought, society is nothing But, social mores and values agreed upon and held together by Govt.

My point is, that by reclassifying weed as a schedule I narcotic, shooting hippies at Kent State, turning fire hoses on them and beating them for protesting, Nixon became more of a fascist, than a role model for conservative values. If we add in the "value" system that created J Edgar Hoover, government imposed racial segregation, etc., it's understandable that the left got organized and sought to "remake" that system.

I'm a conservative, but I'm also a realist. The hippies should have been laughed at, but tolerated. The movement would have dissolved without Nixon going after them. The communes fell apart when they realized that they had to work, and that zero centralized authority led to chaos. Even the drug thing crashed in large part; it was fun and games when they were just smoking weed, but when people started overdosing on heroin and jumping off buildings during bad LSD trips, the fun kind of ended.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. When Nixon made it a priority to wipe the hippy scourge from the face of the earth, they went from being a bunch of pot smokers, to an organized militant force; one that we are still dealing with today....and losing.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on February 25, 2013, 05:58:22 AM
It was during that era, that people like Bill Ayers, Beradine Dorn, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, etc., realized that guns and bombs weren't the answer; government had to be taken from within. They have been working at it for decades, including creating young charismatic proteges like the guy that just won a second term.

During the 70's, when everyone else was snorting coke and disco dancing, this people were quietly at work building the progressive machine. The success that they've had, is marked by the arrogance and contempt that they proudly display.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Solar on February 25, 2013, 06:00:09 AM
Quote from: kramarat on February 25, 2013, 05:39:30 AM
My point is, that by reclassifying weed as a schedule I narcotic, shooting hippies at Kent State, turning fire hoses on them and beating them for protesting, Nixon became more of a fascist, than a role model for conservative values. If we add in the "value" system that created J Edgar Hoover, government imposed racial segregation, etc., it's understandable that the left got organized and sought to "remake" that system.

I'm a conservative, but I'm also a realist. The hippies should have been laughed at, but tolerated. The movement would have dissolved without Nixon going after them. The communes fell apart when they realized that they had to work, and that zero centralized authority led to chaos. Even the drug thing crashed in large part; it was fun and games when they were just smoking weed, but when people started overdosing on heroin and jumping off buildings during bad LSD trips, the fun kind of ended.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. When Nixon made it a priority to wipe the hippy scourge from the face of the earth, they went from being a bunch of pot smokers, to an organized militant force; one that we are still dealing with today....and losing.
+
Geeez K, get your history straight, no wonder you're confused about why we are where we are today.
Again, Nixon had nothing to do with Kent State University, it was the mayor that asked the Governor to roll out the NG.

But like I said before, 90% of the Nation was against the hippy moment, it was a slap in the face to American culture, and the fact that they were associated with drugs made them a scourge of the planet.

But to now just give in and accept bad behavior as a freedom is ludicrous, it plays right into the hands of the leftists trying to destroy the last vestiges of morality in this Nation.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on February 25, 2013, 02:42:36 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 25, 2013, 06:00:09 AM
+
Geeez K, get your history straight, no wonder you're confused about why we are where we are today.
Again, Nixon had nothing to do with Kent State University, it was the mayor that asked the Governor to roll out the NG.

But like I said before, 90% of the Nation was against the hippy moment, it was a slap in the face to American culture, and the fact that they were associated with drugs made them a scourge of the planet.

But to now just give in and accept bad behavior as a freedom is ludicrous, it plays right into the hands of the leftists trying to destroy the last vestiges of morality in this Nation.

At this point, all I'm worried about is our financial plummet and the shredding of our constitution. It's fine to stick by your guns, and say that people that smoke pot should go to prison, or that abortion should be illegal, or that we need to return to 50's era morality, but no one that runs on those things will ever get elected. Frankly, I don't care what people do, nor am I interested in calling for government imposed morality on social issues. It's too late for that. If we allow Obama and whoever his successor might be, to complete the destruction of our economy, we're all toast anyway.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Solar on February 25, 2013, 04:55:08 PM
Quote from: kramarat on February 25, 2013, 02:42:36 PM
At this point, all I'm worried about is our financial plummet and the shredding of our constitution. It's fine to stick by your guns, and say that people that smoke pot should go to prison, or that abortion should be illegal, or that we need to return to 50's era morality, but no one that runs on those things will ever get elected. Frankly, I don't care what people do, nor am I interested in calling for government imposed morality on social issues. It's too late for that. If we allow Obama and whoever his successor might be, to complete the destruction of our economy, we're all toast anyway.
You never did point out what you disagreed with in my post, it is all factual.

QuoteIt was a different time, all drugs were viewed with contempt.
Were they wrong? Looking at the state of the country today, Hell no they weren't, but they at least tried to stop it, now we have even bigger issues to be concerned with than the destruction of the American family/culture, we have our very way of life on the precipice of destruction.

No, I don't fault anyone for trying to preserve our culture for future generations. I believe it's safe to say if 1960s America had seen where we are today, they would have made a lot more changes.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on February 26, 2013, 02:50:24 AM
Quote from: Solar on February 25, 2013, 04:55:08 PM
You never did point out what you disagreed with in my post, it is all factual.

I'm not disagreeing with your post. Drugs were indeed looked at with contempt.

As long as society looked down on drug use, including pot, it would have remained taboo to use them, and the number of pot smokers would have remained fairly small.
When Nixon voiced his open contempt for hippies, and made possession of small amounts of pot into a felony that carried prison time, he blew it. I know he didn't have anything to do with Kent State, but his policies did.
The hippies, for the most part, came from decent families, as did the kids that were shipped off to Vietnam, and they all had parents. Between kids being shipped off to Nam and kids being sentenced to prison for weed, Nixon became the figurehead of a hardline right wing establishment, that was out of control.

By the time Nixon resigned in shame, and the Vietnam disaster was abandoned, drugs and hippy liberalism had gone mainstream. Kent State was a catalyst, as was our failure in Vietnam, as was the invention of the birth control pill, along with other things. The country had changed, and the days of bobby socks and flat top crew cuts were over. Many of the former hippies, cut their hair and headed straight into academia......where they remain today.

The plain fact is, that hardcore social conservatism isn't going to sell, nor can it be forced. On the other hand, I think that fiscal conservatism, along with a push to restore guaranteed constitutional freedom for everyone, is an easy sell, and will get conservatives into office. To hell with the gays, pot smokers, women getting abortions, etc. They don't matter right now.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Solar on February 26, 2013, 03:14:19 AM
Quote from: kramarat on February 26, 2013, 02:50:24 AM
I'm not disagreeing with your post. Drugs were indeed looked at with contempt.

As long as society looked down on drug use, including pot, it would have remained taboo to use them, and the number of pot smokers would have remained fairly small.
When Nixon voiced his open contempt for hippies, and made possession of small amounts of pot into a felony that carried prison time, he blew it. I know he didn't have anything to do with Kent State, but his policies did.
The hippies, for the most part, came from decent families, as did the kids that were shipped off to Vietnam, and they all had parents. Between kids being shipped off to Nam and kids being sentenced to prison for weed, Nixon became the figurehead of a hardline right wing establishment, that was out of control.

By the time Nixon resigned in shame, and the Vietnam disaster was abandoned, drugs and hippy liberalism had gone mainstream. Kent State was a catalyst, as was our failure in Vietnam, as was the invention of the birth control pill, along with other things. The country had changed, and the days of bobby socks and flat top crew cuts were over. Many of the former hippies, cut their hair and headed straight into academia......where they remain today.

The plain fact is, that hardcore social conservatism isn't going to sell, nor can it be forced. On the other hand, I think that fiscal conservatism, along with a push to restore guaranteed constitutional freedom for everyone, is an easy sell, and will get conservatives into office. To hell with the gays, pot smokers, women getting abortions, etc. They don't matter right now.
I remember this time quite well, LBJ was actually the cause and effect, it was under his administration that caused the hippy generation, the social reversal of what was considered normal, it was his administration, through the DOJ that concluded more that 85% of crime in the US was related to drugs.
Nixon merely inherited the mess that LBJ created. But keep in mind, all this was taking place in a small window of time, the fire was already raging, the drug culture was underway, Nixon had two options, fight or retreat, he fought hard and history only looks at who lost the battle, not the one who exacerbated it.

Nixon had few qualities, but he didn't hate the country, nor was he a racist like LBJ, in fact Nixon really didn't do all that great of a job, but I'm not willing to lie about history and place the blame where is does not belong.
Nixon was between a rock and a hard place, the country's very social fabric was unraveling in one single decade and he at least was willing to try and save it.
I think if the 60s had any clue as to what the future held, the country would have taken a very different path, but we didn't.
Now with the ability of hindsight of the last 50 years, how does that bode for the next 50?
My guess would be collapse, and like Nixon, I'm not willing to concede, like him, I too will make a concerted effort to stop the communist grasp around the neck of the country, and if that means voting for people that are willing to fight drug crime and hold Conservative values, then so be it.
I will never bend over and accept the degradation of the country like so many are willing to capitulate and give it over to the leftists.
I agree we need to pick our battles, but we don't have to surrender any either, that's how you lose wars.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on February 26, 2013, 04:19:35 AM
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 03:14:19 AM
I remember this time quite well, LBJ was actually the cause and effect, it was under his administration that caused the hippy generation, the social reversal of what was considered normal, it was his administration, through the DOJ that concluded more that 85% of crime in the US was related to drugs.
Nixon merely inherited the mess that LBJ created. But keep in mind, all this was taking place in a small window of time, the fire was already raging, the drug culture was underway, Nixon had two options, fight or retreat, he fought hard and history only looks at who lost the battle, not the one who exacerbated it.

Nixon had few qualities, but he didn't hate the country, nor was he a racist like LBJ, in fact Nixon really didn't do all that great of a job, but I'm not willing to lie about history and place the blame where is does not belong.
Nixon was between a rock and a hard place, the country's very social fabric was unraveling in one single decade and he at least was willing to try and save it.
I think if the 60s had any clue as to what the future held, the country would have taken a very different path, but we didn't.
Now with the ability of hindsight of the last 50 years, how does that bode for the next 50?
My guess would be collapse, and like Nixon, I'm not willing to concede, like him, I too will make a concerted effort to stop the communist grasp around the neck of the country, and if that means voting for people that are willing to fight drug crime and hold Conservative values, then so be it.
I will never bend over and accept the degradation of the country like so many are willing to capitulate and give it over to the leftists.
I agree we need to pick our battles, but we don't have to surrender any either, that's how you lose wars.

Sure Nixon took the blame. Nobody remembers that democrats were the racists of the country, or that Kennedy and Johnson escalated Vietnam, either.
Being one that watches social trends, I don't see laws as having that big of an impact on society, unless they are specifically pissing off certain segments.

An example would be the scourge of crack cocaine. It was public enemy #1 for awhile; but it wasn't harsh laws that caused a major decline in it's use, it was the fact that it left people completely mindless, if it didn't kill them.

As long as we're in the religion forum, I'd say that God plays a hand in things too. Take the sexual promiscuity that marked the 70's. I can't help that think that the sudden emergence of herpes was not accidental. When that didn't do much good, along came HIV and AIDS, seemingly out of nowhere, and lo and behold....it hit the gays the hardest. Coincidence?

I know that the left still pushes promiscuity, homosexuality and Godlessness as a platform. Here's the problem: The things that the left pushes have very real and nasty consequences. As hard as the left pushes, as the negative aspects of their belief system come to fruition, society becomes self correcting.

So, while I don't think social conservatism is unimportant, I think it would have much more impact if it was presented as a common sense individual choice, rather than a demand that is made through the creation of more laws.

Take drugs for example:

My way, would be to explain to kids, from a young age, that drugs are out there, and that getting involved in them leads to depression, suicide, homelessness, prostitution and all kinds of ugly things, along with examples of people that had lost everything because of them.

Your way, would be to say---I don't like drugs, therefore I will push for laws to be passed to make sure you don't use them; and if you do use them and get caught, I want to make sure you go to prison for it.

Different strokes for different folks.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Solar on February 26, 2013, 07:44:14 AM
Quote from: kramarat on February 26, 2013, 04:19:35 AM
Sure Nixon took the blame. Nobody remembers that democrats were the racists of the country, or that Kennedy and Johnson escalated Vietnam, either.
Being one that watches social trends, I don't see laws as having that big of an impact on society, unless they are specifically pissing off certain segments.

An example would be the scourge of crack cocaine. It was public enemy #1 for awhile; but it wasn't harsh laws that caused a major decline in it's use, it was the fact that it left people completely mindless, if it didn't kill them.

As long as we're in the religion forum, I'd say that God plays a hand in things too. Take the sexual promiscuity that marked the 70's. I can't help that think that the sudden emergence of herpes was not accidental. When that didn't do much good, along came HIV and AIDS, seemingly out of nowhere, and lo and behold....it hit the gays the hardest. Coincidence?

I know that the left still pushes promiscuity, homosexuality and Godlessness as a platform. Here's the problem: The things that the left pushes have very real and nasty consequences. As hard as the left pushes, as the negative aspects of their belief system come to fruition, society becomes self correcting.

So, while I don't think social conservatism is unimportant, I think it would have much more impact if it was presented as a common sense individual choice, rather than a demand that is made through the creation of more laws.

Take drugs for example:

My way, would be to explain to kids, from a young age, that drugs are out there, and that getting involved in them leads to depression, suicide, homelessness, prostitution and all kinds of ugly things, along with examples of people that had lost everything because of them.

Your way, would be to say---I don't like drugs, therefore I will push for laws to be passed to make sure you don't use them; and if you do use them and get caught, I want to make sure you go to prison for it.

Different strokes for different folks.
No, we don't need new laws, and personally I believe it should be left to the states.
My point is, we don't need to surrender to behavior that is destructive to society as a whole.

It's funny in a way, our society learned long ago that drugs were bad and extremely destructive to family/community, but the left has been pervasive in their pursuit of our destruction. They know quite well to attack on all fronts.
All we ever do is run in after the fact, only to get blamed as intolerant of personal behavior.
Were at a crossroads, we can easily focus on fiscal issues and ignore the rest of the war that has us surrounded, or we can continue to speak out against things that damage and fragment our society.

Take Religion, are you willing to concede worship to the left, or are you willing to fight for that?
The point is, the 60s saw what was happening and tried to fight, but essentially lost and look at the results, we now have a Marxist in office.
No, I'm not saying there a direct correlation, it's just one of the symptoms of a bigger problem, liberalism fights us on all fronts, we need to be more preemptive in protecting our beliefs, just conceding on several fronts will simply give them an even stronger grip on society and drugs is one of them.

You seem to be under the illusion that some drugs are OK, but where will you draw the line?
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on February 26, 2013, 12:47:29 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 07:44:14 AM
No, we don't need new laws, and personally I believe it should be left to the states.
My point is, we don't need to surrender to behavior that is destructive to society as a whole.

It's funny in a way, our society learned long ago that drugs were bad and extremely destructive to family/community, but the left has been pervasive in their pursuit of our destruction. They know quite well to attack on all fronts.
All we ever do is run in after the fact, only to get blamed as intolerant of personal behavior.
Were at a crossroads, we can easily focus on fiscal issues and ignore the rest of the war that has us surrounded, or we can continue to speak out against things that damage and fragment our society.

Take Religion, are you willing to concede worship to the left, or are you willing to fight for that?
The point is, the 60s saw what was happening and tried to fight, but essentially lost and look at the results, we now have a Marxist in office.
No, I'm not saying there a direct correlation, it's just one of the symptoms of a bigger problem, liberalism fights us on all fronts, we need to be more preemptive in protecting our beliefs, just conceding on several fronts will simply give them an even stronger grip on society and drugs is one of them.

You seem to be under the illusion that some drugs are OK, but where will you draw the line?

It doesn't have anything to do with drugs; although I think that attempting to do battle on keeping pot a felony for simple possession is a losing one. Besides, there is no line, it doesn't matter what I think. Drugs are as available to anyone that wants them, as they ever were, maybe more so. Illegality has prevented or stopped nothing.

I'm not just interested in beating liberals back; I want educated people to be making educated decisions on their own, regardless of if drugs are legal or not. People that are able to look at the option of using drugs, and not seeing them as a viable option in their lives, will be rational, thinking people. Rational, thinking people, will not be voting for democrats. They will have a natural inclination towards conservatism.

In other words, I don't want a conservative government to force people into accepting socially conservative morals. I want people that embrace conservatism on their own, once it's explained to them. When that happens, it doesn't take threats, and they will have become conservatives forever.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Solar on February 26, 2013, 01:29:00 PM
Quote from: kramarat on February 26, 2013, 12:47:29 PM
It doesn't have anything to do with drugs; although I think that attempting to do battle on keeping pot a felony for simple possession is a losing one. Besides, there is no line, it doesn't matter what I think. Drugs are as available to anyone that wants them, as they ever were, maybe more so. Illegality has prevented or stopped nothing.

I'm not just interested in beating liberals back; I want educated people to be making educated decisions on their own, regardless of if drugs are legal or not. People that are able to look at the option of using drugs, and not seeing them as a viable option in their lives, will be rational, thinking people. Rational, thinking people, will not be voting for democrats. They will have a natural inclination towards conservatism.

In other words, I don't want a conservative government to force people into accepting socially conservative morals. I want people that embrace conservatism on their own, once it's explained to them. When that happens, it doesn't take threats, and they will have become conservatives forever.
I wonder if this would even be an issue if the borders had been closed 50 years ago?
I believe many of the ills the country suffers can easily be traced to illegals entering the country, even Husein may have never been allowed as a child to enter if we had a serious immigration policy in place.
Even the drug issue would be nowhere near as bad as it is today.

I agree making a roach a felony was pretty extreme, but it was the states that instituted that law long before the Fed, so it would appear the states knew more about the problem at hand than the Fed at the time.
In fact the Fed had an original tax on weed before they banned it.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on February 26, 2013, 01:52:24 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 01:29:00 PM
I wonder if this would even be an issue if the borders had been closed 50 years ago?
I believe many of the ills the country suffers can easily be traced to illegals entering the country, even Husein may have never been allowed as a child to enter if we had a serious immigration policy in place.
Even the drug issue would be nowhere near as bad as it is today.

I agree making a roach a felony was pretty extreme, but it was the states that instituted that law long before the Fed, so it would appear the states knew more about the problem at hand than the Fed at the time.
In fact the Fed had an original tax on weed before they banned it.

Well, people have been using intoxicants, for as long as there have been people.

I think the drug problem in the US is two pronged: 1) Drug use has been glamorized by the left, and 2) Drugs have been criminalized by the right.....which has led to an enormous profit motive.

Now that pot's been pretty much legalized in CA, are all kinds of new people smoking it, that weren't before? I doubt it.

I could get weed anytime I wanted. It's not because it's illegal that I don't; I just have absolutely no interest whatsoever. A lot of people play around with pot or other drugs, but a full 90% just stop on their own, they either realize that they don't like the feeling, or they realize it's a dead end street.

I don't know if closed borders would do any good, as far as drugs go. If there is a demand, it will be met. There is so much money involved, that buying off federal agents would be a piece of cake...as I'm sure it is now.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Solar on February 26, 2013, 02:14:39 PM
Quote from: kramarat on February 26, 2013, 01:52:24 PM
Well, people have been using intoxicants, for as long as there have been people.

I think the drug problem in the US is two pronged: 1) Drug use has been glamorized by the left, and 2) Drugs have been criminalized by the right.....which has led to an enormous profit motive.

Now that pot's been pretty much legalized in CA, are all kinds of new people smoking it, that weren't before? I doubt it.

I could get weed anytime I wanted. It's not because it's illegal that I don't; I just have absolutely no interest whatsoever. A lot of people play around with pot or other drugs, but a full 90% just stop on their own, they either realize that they don't like the feeling, or they realize it's a dead end street.

I don't know if closed borders would do any good, as far as drugs go. If there is a demand, it will be met. There is so much money involved, that buying off federal agents would be a piece of cake...as I'm sure it is now.
Borders closed would have made it much harder for drugs like heroin, cocaine etc to get across the border, in turn less people would have been exposed to it.
But Ca never legalized weed, you still need a prescription, and yes, younger and younger kids are using it.
And no, it used to be that the left was against drugs as much as the right, that is, until they made it a political issue, as it is today.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on February 26, 2013, 02:29:25 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 02:14:39 PM
Borders closed would have made it much harder for drugs like heroin, cocaine etc to get across the border, in turn less people would have been exposed to it.
But Ca never legalized weed, you still need a prescription, and yes, younger and younger kids are using it.
And no, it used to be that the left was against drugs as much as the right, that is, until they made it a political issue, as it is today.

I just don't see it so much as a drug problem, as a "stupid" problem. If conservatives could get in power and go to work on stomping out "stupid", which would be done through education on the constititution, a focus on self respect, self reliance, respect for others, a strong work ethic, pride in country, responsibility, etc.; the rest of the problems would evaporate. That would include the drug problem, teenage pregnancy, abortion, and every other crappy thing the left has delivered. Without anything being forced, we would have a nation that is comprised of mostly, responsible individuals. If that could be accomplished, the democrat party wouldn't stand a chance. They thrive on stupid.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Solar on February 26, 2013, 03:39:41 PM
Quote from: kramarat on February 26, 2013, 02:29:25 PM
I just don't see it so much as a drug problem, as a "stupid" problem. If conservatives could get in power and go to work on stomping out "stupid", which would be done through education on the constititution, a focus on self respect, self reliance, respect for others, a strong work ethic, pride in country, responsibility, etc.; the rest of the problems would evaporate. That would include the drug problem, teenage pregnancy, abortion, and every other crappy thing the left has delivered. Without anything being forced, we would have a nation that is comprised of mostly, responsible individuals. If that could be accomplished, the democrat party wouldn't stand a chance. They thrive on stupid.
The RINO stand in the way, once we purge the part of the scum, we can begin to repair the Nation.
I think much of the attraction the left has, is balanced by the hatred of the RINO in the party.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on February 26, 2013, 04:08:44 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 03:39:41 PM
The RINO stand in the way, once we purge the part of the scum, we can begin to repair the Nation.
I think much of the attraction the left has, is balanced by the hatred of the RINO in the party.

The RINOs are only interested in control of the money and power....same as the dems. All them are selling out the country. Watch and see; as 2014 approaches, the RINO will be working hard to rid the party of people like Rand Paul, and any other people that are tea party favorites. Hell, they're already doing it. :cursing:
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Solar on February 26, 2013, 04:13:49 PM
Quote from: kramarat on February 26, 2013, 04:08:44 PM
The RINOs are only interested in control of the money and power....same as the dems. All them are selling out the country. Watch and see; as 2014 approaches, the RINO will be working hard to rid the party of people like Rand Paul, and any other people that are tea party favorites. Hell, they're already doing it. :cursing:
Yeah, they are trying hard, but I think they know they are on the losing end of the deal, the base is sick to death of the direction they is taking us, it's virtually the same path as Husein, except the RINO are taking the mountain pass to get there, while Husein is using the super socialist slide down the hill.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on February 26, 2013, 05:09:11 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 04:13:49 PM
Yeah, they are trying hard, but I think they know they are on the losing end of the deal, the base is sick to death of the direction they is taking us, it's virtually the same path as Husein, except the RINO are taking the mountain pass to get there, while Husein is using the super socialist slide down the hill.

So my whole point about the drug thing, the abortion thing, the gay marriage thing, etc., is that if any conservative or republican candidate runs on social issues as a priority, I honestly believe they won't have a chance of winning. It's just my opinion, but I don't think we can afford to have those things on the front burner. It's an uphill battle against the democrats and the entire mainstream media. Sure the dems have brought on all kinds of moral degradation, but if we can't win elections, America completely ceases to exist as it was founded. Once that's gone, it's gone forever.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Solar on February 26, 2013, 05:11:51 PM
Quote from: kramarat on February 26, 2013, 05:09:11 PM
So my whole point about the drug thing, the abortion thing, the gay marriage thing, etc., is that if any conservative or republican candidate runs on social issues as a priority, I honestly believe they won't have a chance of winning. It's just my opinion, but I don't think we can afford to have those things on the front burner. It's an uphill battle against the democrats and the entire mainstream media. Sure the dems have brought on all kinds of moral degradation, but if we can't win elections, America completely ceases to exist as it was founded. Once that's gone, it's gone forever.
Not many candidates run using that platform, none in recent memory anyway.
It's those that fall into the leftist media trap allowing themselves to be labeled in that manner.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on February 27, 2013, 02:02:02 AM
Quote from: Solar on February 26, 2013, 05:11:51 PM
Not many candidates run using that platform, none in recent memory anyway.
It's those that fall into the leftist media trap allowing themselves to be labeled in that manner.

Yep. And that's a big problem. I think Rand Paul has the right idea. Just keep plowing ahead on the out of control government, government spending and the economy. Even then, we might never get the presidency again, with 99% of media distorting the truth to make republicans look bad and democrats look good.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: MFA on February 27, 2013, 09:58:15 AM
Quote from: kramarat on February 24, 2013, 01:30:50 PM
It's too late to turn back the clock, but I think the approach to drugs should have been to shame people out of using them. If drugs were around, (which they already are), and they were looked at as something that losers do, I think less people would use them. Kind of like picking your nose in public. It's not against the law, but most people just don't do it.

Of course, using drugs is yet another thing that the left has worked hard on, to present as cool.

Hollywood certainly hasn't helped with that.  You're right; it's too late.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: anti-American on March 03, 2013, 08:27:53 PM
I strongly oppose the consumption of alcohol because nothing good can possibly occur as a result of drinking alcohol. I don't understand why so many people in American society like alcohol so much. In college, my buddies would always be trying to convince me to drink alcohol and they just couldn't comprehend that one could not see the value in drinking alcohol. People always ask me why I don't drink and I tell them that, seeing as drinking is an affirmative act, I should be asking them why they drink. I do something only if I have a reason to do it. I don't think it makes much sense to ask someone why they don't do something when there is no obvious reason that one would naturally want to do that something.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Mountainshield on March 04, 2013, 11:34:09 AM
Quote from: American on March 03, 2013, 08:27:53 PM
I strongly oppose the consumption of alcohol because nothing good can possibly occur as a result of drinking alcohol. I don't understand why so many people in American society like alcohol so much. In college, my buddies would always be trying to convince me to drink alcohol and they just couldn't comprehend that one could not see the value in drinking alcohol. People always ask me why I don't drink and I tell them that, seeing as drinking is an affirmative act, I should be asking them why they drink. I do something only if I have a reason to do it. I don't think it makes much sense to ask someone why they don't do something when there is no obvious reason that one would naturally want to do that something.

Very good point,

Coming from a very alcohol focused society, when I say I don't drink alcohol people get very offended.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: walkstall on March 04, 2013, 05:00:42 PM
Quote from: Mountainshield on March 04, 2013, 11:34:09 AM
Very good point,

Coming from a very alcohol focused society, when I say I don't drink alcohol people get very offended.

Hmm... people just ask me if I would like a pop or ice tea. 
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on March 05, 2013, 02:29:55 AM
Quote from: walkstall on March 04, 2013, 05:00:42 PM
Hmm... people just ask me if I would like a pop or ice tea.

People are funny. If I decide to drink hard alcohol, I'll have one or two mixed drinks and switch to just beer. My brother in law gets offended because I won't drink shots of whiskey with him. :confused:
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: walkstall on March 05, 2013, 04:30:46 AM
Quote from: kramarat on March 05, 2013, 02:29:55 AM
People are funny. If I decide to drink hard alcohol, I'll have one or two mixed drinks and switch to just beer. My brother in law gets offended  because I won't drink shots of whiskey with him. :confused:


:lol:
I'm sorry but, that would be your BIL's problem. I would say he needs to grow up or he has a drinking problem. 
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on March 05, 2013, 04:36:25 AM
Quote from: walkstall on March 05, 2013, 04:30:46 AM

:lol:
I'm sorry but, that would be your BIL's problem. I would say he needs to grow up or he has a drinking problem.

He's about 8 years younger than me, (42). Any day now, I'm expecting for him to realize that pounding shots just isn't worth the pain the next day. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Solar on March 05, 2013, 06:22:50 AM
Quote from: kramarat on March 05, 2013, 04:36:25 AM
He's about 8 years younger than me, (42). Any day now, I'm expecting for him to realize that pounding shots just isn't worth the pain the next day. :rolleyes:
Years ago I had a bunch that I hung around, they thought by out drinking each other made them somehow cooler.
So I started inviting them over, I had two bottles, one full of expensive whiskey I refused to share, the other, a refilled whiskey bottle of the same name filled with tea.
I would challenge them to shot contest and they would wind up sick as dogs, and I would taunt the Hell out of them for being such whiny pussies.
I kept this charade going for over a year, then one day offered them a shot of my special whiskey. :biggrin:

Eventually they all grew up, but not all and he died from alcohol complications.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on March 05, 2013, 06:30:37 AM
Quote from: Solar on March 05, 2013, 06:22:50 AM
Years ago I had a bunch that I hung around, they thought by out drinking each other made them somehow cooler.
So I started inviting them over, I had two bottles, one full of expensive whiskey I refused to share, the other, a refilled whiskey bottle of the same name filled with tea.
I would challenge them to shot contest and they would wind up sick as dogs, and I would taunt the Hell out of them for being such whiny pussies.
I kept this charade going for over a year, then one day offered them a shot of my special whiskey. :biggrin:

Eventually they all grew up, but not all and he died from alcohol complications.

Yeah. I still like to drink, but only one night a week, do I drink more than a few beers; and I don't can't drink till I'm stupid anymore. Just thinking about a straight shot of whiskey makes me want to puke.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Solar on March 05, 2013, 06:43:32 AM
Quote from: kramarat on March 05, 2013, 06:30:37 AM
Yeah. I still like to drink, but only one night a week, do I drink more than a few beers; and I don't can't drink till I'm stupid anymore. Just thinking about a straight shot of whiskey makes me want to puke.
I still have a shot or two of whiskey, but I have no compulsion to drink in the least, just occasionally a few times a year for no reason.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Solar on March 05, 2013, 07:28:14 AM
You know you have a problem when you try and escape the scene in a toy truck. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Jamie Jeanette Craft, 29, is also charged with public intoxication, refusal to submit, disorderly conduct, leaving the scene of an accident with property damage and driving while license canceled, suspended or revoked.

Just 5:30 p.m. Sunday officers were called to 4303 Aggie Road.  According to a witness, Craft was traveling at a "high rate of speed" when her 2001 Pontiac Grand Am rounded a corner and hit the under panel of his trailer.

Another witness told police that Craft, who was dressed in a white sweat shirt with no pants or shoes on, began yelling at him.  According to the police report, she grabbed the man's daughter and got into his son's Power Wheels truck.

The man told police he grabbed his children and took them to his parent's house.  When he came back out he said Craft was still in the toy truck "trying to drive it."

After he and his father made her get out of the truck, the man told police she began yelling and walked to her mother's house.

That's where police found her when they arrived.  They say she was also "irate and very intoxicated."
http://www.kltv.com/story/21505735/woman-charged-with-dwi-after-trying-to-drive-off-in-toy-truck (http://www.kltv.com/story/21505735/woman-charged-with-dwi-after-trying-to-drive-off-in-toy-truck)
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: kramarat on March 05, 2013, 01:10:27 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 05, 2013, 07:28:14 AM
You know you have a problem when you try and escape the scene in a toy truck. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Jamie Jeanette Craft, 29, is also charged with public intoxication, refusal to submit, disorderly conduct, leaving the scene of an accident with property damage and driving while license canceled, suspended or revoked.

Just 5:30 p.m. Sunday officers were called to 4303 Aggie Road.  According to a witness, Craft was traveling at a "high rate of speed" when her 2001 Pontiac Grand Am rounded a corner and hit the under panel of his trailer.

Another witness told police that Craft, who was dressed in a white sweat shirt with no pants or shoes on, began yelling at him.  According to the police report, she grabbed the man's daughter and got into his son's Power Wheels truck.

The man told police he grabbed his children and took them to his parent's house.  When he came back out he said Craft was still in the toy truck "trying to drive it."

After he and his father made her get out of the truck, the man told police she began yelling and walked to her mother's house.

That's where police found her when they arrived.  They say she was also "irate and very intoxicated."
http://www.kltv.com/story/21505735/woman-charged-with-dwi-after-trying-to-drive-off-in-toy-truck (http://www.kltv.com/story/21505735/woman-charged-with-dwi-after-trying-to-drive-off-in-toy-truck)

We've had two intoxicated female incidents around here in last couple weeks; one of them called 911 to get them to go buy her some smokes, and another one jumped in a running cop car, (while the cop was out of the car), and drove off with it. I'm sure the cop caught hell too, for leaving his car with it running. Booze can get people in some serious trouble.

As harsh as the laws are, people still go out on the weekends and drive while totally plowed.
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: Solar on March 05, 2013, 01:13:58 PM
Quote from: kramarat on March 05, 2013, 01:10:27 PM
We've had two intoxicated female incidents around here in last couple weeks; one of them called 911 to get them to go buy her some smokes, and another one jumped in a running cop car, (while the cop was out of the car), and drove off with it. I'm sure the cop caught hell too, for leaving his car with it running. Booze can get people in some serious trouble.

As harsh as the laws are, people still go out on the weekends and drive while totally plowed.
Yeah, some literally lose their mind, as exampled by this bimbo. :laugh:
Title: Re: Alcohol consumption
Post by: simpsonofpg on March 07, 2013, 01:46:34 PM
If I am not mistaken wine was served at the last supper.  There is nothing wrong with alcohol until it is abused.  God tells me to do all things in moderation. I would like to leave religion out of it.