From: Brent on 15 Feb 2010 08:32 On 2010-02-15, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:45:19 +0000 (UTC), Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On 2010-02-14, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:33:10 -0700, richard <member(a)newsguy.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:42:57 -0600, Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>> It's such a huge worry when your kids hit 16 and you remember what you were >>>>> like at that age and how easy it easy for a dumb kid to drive crazy and >>>>> kill/cripple himself or someone else and destroy his whole life. >>>>> >>>>> Hell - 20 would be even better. Teens, esp boys, are wild and don't think >>>>> about consequences. >>>> >>>>Would age make any difference? It's the fact it's your first time. >>>>Kind of like hitting an amusement park for the first time you want to do >>>>everything as fast as you can. >>> >>> Wrong. We were all much more mature at 21 than we were at 16. >>> Or at least most of us were. >> >>So you'll punish those who were mature enough at 16? If we are going >>to use the slow-ship-in-the-fleet logic, then the driving age would be >>somewhere around 65 years old, upon which it would be limited because >>of age related problems. People would be allowed to drive for a few >>months of their lives. > > IF we have to make an arbitrary age I simply said 21. > And there are very few 16 year olds mature enough to drive. And less > now than there were 30 years ago. The kids today are idiots. of course 30 years ago people said: "The kids today are idiots" This could be a free country if it weren't for people's desires to control others.
From: Lookout on 15 Feb 2010 09:49 On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:32:05 +0000 (UTC), Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 2010-02-15, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:45:19 +0000 (UTC), Brent >><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>On 2010-02-14, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:33:10 -0700, richard <member(a)newsguy.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:42:57 -0600, Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It's such a huge worry when your kids hit 16 and you remember what you were >>>>>> like at that age and how easy it easy for a dumb kid to drive crazy and >>>>>> kill/cripple himself or someone else and destroy his whole life. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hell - 20 would be even better. Teens, esp boys, are wild and don't think >>>>>> about consequences. >>>>> >>>>>Would age make any difference? It's the fact it's your first time. >>>>>Kind of like hitting an amusement park for the first time you want to do >>>>>everything as fast as you can. >>>> >>>> Wrong. We were all much more mature at 21 than we were at 16. >>>> Or at least most of us were. >>> >>>So you'll punish those who were mature enough at 16? If we are going >>>to use the slow-ship-in-the-fleet logic, then the driving age would be >>>somewhere around 65 years old, upon which it would be limited because >>>of age related problems. People would be allowed to drive for a few >>>months of their lives. >> >> IF we have to make an arbitrary age I simply said 21. >> And there are very few 16 year olds mature enough to drive. And less >> now than there were 30 years ago. The kids today are idiots. > >of course 30 years ago people said: "The kids today are idiots" > >This could be a free country if it weren't for people's desires to >control others. I want to know the streets are safe when I'm driving. I was a Drivers Trainer in the Army and I have a CDL. 16 year olds are NOT capable of being trusted to drive except under very ridged circumstances.
From: Brent on 15 Feb 2010 10:15 On 2010-02-15, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:32:05 +0000 (UTC), Brent ><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On 2010-02-15, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:45:19 +0000 (UTC), Brent >>><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On 2010-02-14, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:33:10 -0700, richard <member(a)newsguy.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:42:57 -0600, Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It's such a huge worry when your kids hit 16 and you remember what you were >>>>>>> like at that age and how easy it easy for a dumb kid to drive crazy and >>>>>>> kill/cripple himself or someone else and destroy his whole life. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hell - 20 would be even better. Teens, esp boys, are wild and don't think >>>>>>> about consequences. >>>>>> >>>>>>Would age make any difference? It's the fact it's your first time. >>>>>>Kind of like hitting an amusement park for the first time you want to do >>>>>>everything as fast as you can. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. We were all much more mature at 21 than we were at 16. >>>>> Or at least most of us were. >>>> >>>>So you'll punish those who were mature enough at 16? If we are going >>>>to use the slow-ship-in-the-fleet logic, then the driving age would be >>>>somewhere around 65 years old, upon which it would be limited because >>>>of age related problems. People would be allowed to drive for a few >>>>months of their lives. >>> >>> IF we have to make an arbitrary age I simply said 21. >>> And there are very few 16 year olds mature enough to drive. And less >>> now than there were 30 years ago. The kids today are idiots. >> >>of course 30 years ago people said: "The kids today are idiots" >> >>This could be a free country if it weren't for people's desires to >>control others. > > I want to know the streets are safe when I'm driving. I was a Drivers > Trainer in the Army and I have a CDL. 16 year olds are NOT capable of > being trusted to drive except under very ridged circumstances. 'safety' is always the excuse of the tyrant and control freak.
From: Matt on 15 Feb 2010 10:27 On Feb 15, 12:24 am, Lookout <mrLook...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:09:17 -0800 (PST), Matt > > > > > > <matttel...(a)sprynet.com> wrote: > >On Feb 14, 3:13 am, Lookout <mrLook...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:48:41 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)" > > >> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote: > >> >Matt <matttel...(a)sprynet.com> wrote in > >> >news:437fec10-7e76-43a6-a8c7-0edd43a249df(a)w27g2000pre.googlegroups.com: > > >> >> On Feb 13, 3:09 pm, "RD (The Sandman)" > >> >> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote: > >> >>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" <xeton2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote > >> >>> innews:X > >> >> ns9D1E772E06965riemann1850yahoo...(a)216.168.3.70: > > >> >>> > It's such a huge worry when your kids hit 16 and you remember what > >> >>> > you were like at that age and how easy it easy for a dumb kid to > >> >>> > drive crazy and kill/cripple himself or someone else and destroy > >> >>> > his whole life. > > >> >>> > Hell - 20 would be even better. Teens, esp boys, are wild and don't > >> >>> > think about consequences. > > >> >>> Why not wait until 21, then they can legally drink at the same time. > > >> >> Many years ago, I suggested dropping the drinking age to 12, removing > >> >> the right entirely at the same age as a driver's license. I was > >> >> kidding, of > >> >> course, but sometimes... > > >> >> Raising ages only makes something more taboo, thus more desireable. > >> >> Let them drink when their parents think they are ready. Let them drive > >> >> when > >> >> they can prove to the state/locality that they are ready. > > >> >> Matt > > >> >There is a point there even though that post was simply a jibe at SADD. > > >> >The legal age of consent or when someone is considered an adult > >> >(emancipated youth excepted) is either 18 or 21. It really needs to be > >> >one or the other. I don't care which one is chosen, however, IMHO, > >> >someone who is old enough to marry, vote and be sent by our president to > >> >die on foreign soil, is certainly old enough to enter a bar and drink a > >> >beer. > > >> On this we agree > >> Make it 21 for both. > > >21 certainly makes sense. But then, why is it you can be drafted at > >18, > >serve your country and so forth? Many kids are working full-time at > >18, > >even some supporting families. > > >Age is an arbitrary choice, and too easy an out. > > >Matt > > 21 for draft too. I don't necessarily agree, but at least you are being consistent. Matt
From: Lookout on 15 Feb 2010 15:34
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:15:25 +0000 (UTC), Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 2010-02-15, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:32:05 +0000 (UTC), Brent >><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>On 2010-02-15, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:45:19 +0000 (UTC), Brent >>>><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 2010-02-14, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:33:10 -0700, richard <member(a)newsguy.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:42:57 -0600, Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids >>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's such a huge worry when your kids hit 16 and you remember what you were >>>>>>>> like at that age and how easy it easy for a dumb kid to drive crazy and >>>>>>>> kill/cripple himself or someone else and destroy his whole life. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hell - 20 would be even better. Teens, esp boys, are wild and don't think >>>>>>>> about consequences. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Would age make any difference? It's the fact it's your first time. >>>>>>>Kind of like hitting an amusement park for the first time you want to do >>>>>>>everything as fast as you can. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wrong. We were all much more mature at 21 than we were at 16. >>>>>> Or at least most of us were. >>>>> >>>>>So you'll punish those who were mature enough at 16? If we are going >>>>>to use the slow-ship-in-the-fleet logic, then the driving age would be >>>>>somewhere around 65 years old, upon which it would be limited because >>>>>of age related problems. People would be allowed to drive for a few >>>>>months of their lives. >>>> >>>> IF we have to make an arbitrary age I simply said 21. >>>> And there are very few 16 year olds mature enough to drive. And less >>>> now than there were 30 years ago. The kids today are idiots. >>> >>>of course 30 years ago people said: "The kids today are idiots" >>> >>>This could be a free country if it weren't for people's desires to >>>control others. >> >> I want to know the streets are safe when I'm driving. I was a Drivers >> Trainer in the Army and I have a CDL. 16 year olds are NOT capable of >> being trusted to drive except under very ridged circumstances. > >'safety' is always the excuse of the tyrant and control freak. > It's called society. |