Reagan was a douchebag and Congress is filled with pussies.

[R3d_Anonymous]

He blackmailed all the states into raising the drinking age to 21. Now with all the drunk driving incidents, states are unlikely to reduce it anyhow, and it is so foolish because people are allowed to join the military, get married, go into the porn industry, live on their own, etc at 18, but not drink. What asininity!

My biggest problem with all of this is the fact that Reagan was able to do this. The president should not be able to overpower the states like this. Also, notice how Congress is such a pussy these days. Congress can’t decide on anything in a reasonably timely fashion and are more concerned about their image as Democrats and Republicans, rather than actually keeping the president in check and resolving issues. For example, Congress did nothing about Obama’s violation of the War Powers Act with his project in Libya. It is implied that Congress was okay with it seeing as they did not do anything about it and funded it, but funding does not constitute authorization. For the law to be completely adhered to, Congress need to explicitly authorize Obama to keep his troops out in Libya past the deadline.

The reason they didn’t is as appleciders said:

@appleciders

Some members of Congress did voice objections publicly, but not one (that I’m aware of) actually tried to put into motion any kind of lawsuit, legislation, or Congressional action into motion. There are a few reasons for this, and I’ll detail them below:

First, in America, the Republican party is typically more hawkish*; that is, more willing or even eager to think getting involved in a foreign war is justified or wise. So many Republicans didn’t tried to actually prevent Obama from attacking Libya, because their worldview is more accepting of getting involved in foreign wars if America stands to gain by doing so. Democrats are typically more dovish*, but they’re reluctant to oppose a sitting Democratic President because they worry that doing so would be unpopular with their constituents and would weaken Obama on other issues about which they care more.

Second, Libya in general and Qaddafi in particular are pretty damn unpopular in America, and many conservative Americans were perfectly happy to see us act against Qaddafi, who was a pretty bad guy, if maybe not a lot worse than some other third world dictators with whom America is much more closely aligned. Attacking Qaddafi was reasonably popular with bleeding-heart liberals who loved the narrative of poor Muslims overthrowing their oppressive governments to establish liberal democracies because it confirms a belief that most Muslims are basically good people oppressed by governments that support terror and other bad things. So there was actually a significant base of support for supporting Libyan rebels in general.

Thirdly, Congresspeople don’t like to stick their necks out without a good potential upside. Most of the country doesn’t pay close enough attention to parse the fine distinction between someone who tries to stop the President from attacking that bad guy Qaddafi because of a law that Congress passed that may or may not be Constitutional, and someone who tries to stop the President from attacking Qaddafi because they like Qaddafi. They worried that if they raise any objection, they’ll be painted as weak on evil bad men like Qaddafi, or even as Qaddafi sympathizers. Congresspeople are basically always campaigning for their next election, and they don’t want to give anyone an opening to attack them.

So Congress was in a pickle: they don’t like the President violating the War Powers Resolution (which, as I said, may not be Constitutional) but most of them think that attacking Qaddafi, supporting the Libyan rebels, or both are worthy objectives. They think that military action is popular with their constituents, and they don’t want to be attacked in their next election with claims that they’re Qaddafi sympathizers. Now, they could have tried to keep the War Powers Resolution from being weakened by allowing yet another sitting President to violate it with impunity by passing an explicit authorization for military force in Libya, but then they’re on record supporting the war, which will be a big liability if the war goes badly.

Basically, Congress is a bunch of whiny pushovers who were unwilling to vote either to authorize military force or attempt to enforce the War Powers Resolution because they’re more scared of being on the wrong side than excited to be on the right side.

*This is a big generalization and there are exceptions, but these are the broad trends.

This example was rather trivial and petty, but it shows how Congress is filled with pussies.

And it is because Congress is filled with pussies that our presidents have too much power and that we have fucking people like Reagan jacking up shit.

[samclem]

Sorry if I stepped on another mods toes, but this is a Pit thread. Moved.

samclem, moderator

[Morgenstern]

This is something I can really get behind. Teenage drinking. What a great idea. :rolleyes:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I object to comparing Congress to pussy or pussies.

A pussy is soft, pliable, sensitive, warm, inviting, hospitable, and a gateway for life.

Congress is more like Satan’s asshole.

Old, crusty, unlubricated, and the most evil place in existence.

[Morgenstern]

But you can drink at 18 in hell. Wait, they don’t have ice. I pit Satan for not furnishing ice.

[dropzone]

Have a hot toddy or glug. There’s a solution for anything.

[Askthepizzaguy]

So the theory is, you can drink alcohol in hell?

…

insert joke about the worst tasting beer here.

[Morgenstern]

@Askthepizzaguy

So the theory is, you can drink alcohol in hell?

…

.

That’s what I heard. But there’s only one stall, and a very, very long line.
I think that’s somewhere in Genesis.

[Trinopus]

Reagan was a douchebag, check.

Congress is a gang of assholes, check. (But…show me a better system of legislation? I don’t like Parliamentary systems, because of the power of coalitions to overrule the will of the majority.)

The 21-year-old drinking age is immoral: check. We can draft them at 18; they can vote at 18; they can own a house at 18. Why the extra three years to have a goddamn beer?

But, weak sauce, man: of all the really shitten things Reagan ever did, this is way down on the list!

[curlcoat]

The OP was TL;DR but the drinking age in some states is younger that 21, until drinking is limited only to hard liquor.

[Jackmannii]

@Trinopus

The 21-year-old drinking age is immoral: check. We can draft them at 18

Wow. When did that happen? Boehner must have sneaked it in as a rider on the Medicare bill. :mad:

[wedgehed]

Kids today! If I could find a way to drink at age 16 (when the legal age was 18), then your balls should have dropped enough to handle illegal 18-year-old gin-swilling.

Damn young’uns want everything served to them in a silver shaker!

And get off my fucking lawn!

[Trinopus]

@Jackmannii

Wow. When did that happen? Boehner must have sneaked it in as a rider on the Medicare bill. :mad:

Well, we still compel them to register for the draft…

[kaylasdad99]

@dropzone

Have a hot toddy or glug. There’s a solution for anything.

Or a solvent, anyway.

[John_Mace]

@Morgenstern

But you can drink at 18 in hell. Wait, they don’t have ice. I pit Satan for not furnishing ice.

I ordered a gin and tonic. This is gin, tonic and ice. Americans have ice. Take this back and bring me a gin and tonic!

[MrDibble]

@Trinopus

Congress is a gang of assholes, check. (But…show me a better system of legislation? I don’t like Parliamentary systems, because of the power of coalitions to overrule the will of the majority.)

You mean the will of the largest party - if a coalition can overrule them, then surely that coalition represents the will of the majority? If a party has 51% seats, a coalition isn’t going to do jack. But if a party has 49% and a coalition is put together for the 51%, they are the majority.

[Sitnam]

Sounds to me like a freshman party got busted and someone got an underage drinking ticket.

[Monty]

@curlcoat

The OP was TL;DR but the drinking age in some states is younger that 21, until drinking is limited only to hard liquor.

Which states would those happen to be? AFAIK, all 50 states and the variously named territories have 21 as the drinking age and that also applies to beer and wine.

[Ravenman]

I’ve never encountered a better, or less coherent, rant about the drinking age and the War Powers Resolution.

Next time, go for Medicare and parking tickets!

[GrumpyBunny]

… it is so foolish because people are allowed to join the military, get married, go into the porn industry, live on their own, etc at 18, but not drink. What asininity!

I think if you go into the porn industry, you’ll be able to get someone to buy you a drink. Or whatever you want, really.