From: Brent on
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
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
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
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
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.