-Attend a lavish Obama party
-Visit Eric Holder at the DOJ to arm Mexican drug cartels with illegal guns
-Get welfare benefits for you and all your illegitimate offspring
-Get a Solyndra government subsidy
-Get a job in the Secret Service to bang hookers in Colombia
-Get a job in the GSA to take taxpayer funded luxury vacations in Vegas
-Get a union job inciting riots in the #Occupy movement
-Get an Obamacare waiver
-Make illegal donations to the Obama campaign
-Go through TSA genitalia gropings
-Get a job as Secretary of Defense and fly private jets to your mansion in California
-File a false tax return to qualify for Obama's cabinet
Here are a few more.
Personally I'm against mail-in ballots precisely because I think they are too susceptible to fraud and election tampering as a result of the completed ballots being in the hands of the authorities for a longer period of time. But people voting by mail won't be showing ID anyway, so I don't understand the clamor to make people show ID when voting in person.
Part of the reason young people abuse drugs is because legal prohibition makes them appealing -- what's forbidden is enticing. But use is not the same as abuse. Kids having small amounts of beer, wine, etc., is common in many cultures and is not going to harm them. Better that parents teach responsible drinking at an age when kids are starting to get interested in such things, than what happens now, which is that most people drink before they're legally able to do so, and as a result they do it without guidance and abuse it.
People who are dependent minors should not be tried as adults if charged with crimes, but if a 15 year old has taken the steps to become legally independent, which I think all dependent minors should have the option of doing, then that person should be tried as an adult.
But if a teen does not decide to become legally independent, then his parents are empowered to tell him what to do, short of child abuse, and are to some extent legally responsible for his actions.
If he doesn't obey them, they can cut him loose and then he's legally independent whether he wants to be or not.
They can take him back, of course, as many times as they want if both parties are in agreement.
If decisions about drug use were left to the family instead of government, as they should be, that same 15 year old doing the exact same thing would only be breaking one law.
Yet you seem to be saying that in the latter case he or she should be charged as an adult and face a harsher penalty even though *fewer* laws were broken and the person's behavior was the same in both cases.
That makes no sense to me.
Neither drinking alcohol nor driving a motor vehicle is inherently an "adult decision". Decisions are decisions, and any labels applied to them are arbitrary. Each person is different, and there is no specific age at which any one person, let alone all people, suddenly becomes able to make wise choices.
The facts are that most people in this society have at least tried alcohol by age 15, regardless of what the laws say, and in many U.S. states can legally drive (with a learner's permit) at age 14 (see http://www.2pass.co.uk/ages2.htm ). My grandmother drove a car when she was 9. More than a dozen countries have no drinking age laws whatsoever, while many others allow drinking at age 16, 17, or 18 (...
If decisions about drug use were left to the family instead of government, as they should be, that same 15 year old doing the exact same thing would only be breaking one law.
Yet you seem to be saying that in the latter case he or she should be charged as an adult and face a harsher penalty even though *fewer* laws were broken and the person's behavior was the same in both cases.
That makes no sense to me.
Neither drinking alcohol nor driving a motor vehicle is inherently an "adult decision". Decisions are decisions, and any labels applied to them are arbitrary. Each person is different, and there is no specific age at which any one person, let alone all people, suddenly becomes able to make wise choices.
The facts are that most people in this society have at least tried alcohol by age 15, regardless of what the laws say, and in many U.S. states can legally drive (with a learner's permit) at age 14 (see http://www.2pass.co.uk/ages2.htm ). My grandmother drove a car when she was 9. More than a dozen countries have no drinking age laws whatsoever, while many others allow drinking at age 16, 17, or 18 (see http://www2.potsdam.edu/hanso... ).
Sounds to me as if you simply want people to do as they please without any laws and that makes no sense.
Your information is wrong about ages. In my State of SC, while the person gets a learner's permit at 15, they don't get a regular license until at least 16. You should really make sure your sources are accurate before using them.
You think it does? So tell me what makes a crime an "adult crime", in your opinion?
As for the law in South Carolina, quite possibly the law has been changed there since the web page was updated, or it was simply reported to them incorrectly. If they were off by a year in the case of that state's driving laws, that does not mean most of the data on the page is wrong.
If you think it's reasonable to expect me to call every state's Department of Motor Vehicles to confirm what their law says before mentioning a website listing those laws, I really don't know what to tell you, except it sounds like you have a lot of time on your hands.
The law has changed significantly. It was the way the source presented when I got my license in 1980 but that was 32 years ago. Off a year or 10 years it was still off.
My suggestion is that if you are going to use a source you should make sure it's accurate before presenting it as evidence. Failure to do so makes your argument a failure. You can best believe if I was going to use a source but wasn't sure if all the information was correct I would either check it out or not use it. Credibility is lost when YOU use a source then blame the source for being wrong.
Yet on the other hand, you want juveniles to be treated *differently* under the law when it comes to what they are legally allowed to do, such as banning them from drinking alcohol even in cases where their parents are okay with it?
The only consistency I see there is that in each case you take the position that is most authoritarian and least supportive of young people's rights.
Citing a source that turns out to have a minor error versus making a claim without citing any sources -- I wouldn't venture to say one is automatically going to be more convincing than the other. I did you a favor by assuming you were correct and telling the truth about South Carolina's driving laws. If I wanted to be a stickler about argument form and credibility, as you are doing, I simply would've refused to accept your claim without a source, just as you are apparently refusing to accept -- or perhaps are just distracting attention from? -- the larger point that, whatever the case may be in South Carolina, many states do allow people to drive at age 15. Learner's permit or no, the person is still behind the wheel and piloting a motor vehicle.
My suggestion that juveniles be treated differently under the law is based on the fact that they are treated differently than adults when it comes to punishments for the same crimes. If they are tried, convicted, and sentenced in the same manner as an adult when they commit the same crime, let them be treated the same when it comes to what they do. You are the one that seems to be saying they should have the freedoms like adults but not be held to the same disciplinary standard as adults when they break the law.
I'm willing to give them rights to the same level that they would be held responsible for using those rights. It is you that is inconsistent with providing freedoms but not being willing to hold them accountable.
Below is a link to the driving requirements in SC. Scroll down tot he part that starts Conditional License for 15 year olds and read from there. What I provided is an accurate source so no favors are needed. I also didn't expect you to believe me. You chose to do that yourself but a source has been provided. You can bet it's accurate since it comes from the actual place that issues the license.
Nothing...
My suggestion that juveniles be treated differently under the law is based on the fact that they are treated differently than adults when it comes to punishments for the same crimes. If they are tried, convicted, and sentenced in the same manner as an adult when they commit the same crime, let them be treated the same when it comes to what they do. You are the one that seems to be saying they should have the freedoms like adults but not be held to the same disciplinary standard as adults when they break the law.
I'm willing to give them rights to the same level that they would be held responsible for using those rights. It is you that is inconsistent with providing freedoms but not being willing to hold them accountable.
Below is a link to the driving requirements in SC. Scroll down tot he part that starts Conditional License for 15 year olds and read from there. What I provided is an accurate source so no favors are needed. I also didn't expect you to believe me. You chose to do that yourself but a source has been provided. You can bet it's accurate since it comes from the actual place that issues the license.
Nothing distracting from me. I simply pointed out that your source was flawed in a case I knew something about and that if it was wrong on my State there was a distinct possibility that it could be wrong for others. I don't really care about the others as I don't live there and their laws don't apply me related to getting a license.
Yes, that would be inconsistent, however that is not an accurate description of my position. Young people who are legally dependent are dependents of their parents or guardians, not government (unless they are in a state-run orphanage or something). I'm *not* saying don't hold them accountable for misdeeds. I'm saying put the power to hold legal dependents accountable where it belongs -- in the hands of those upon whom they are dependent.
The current system often has people under 18 being "charged as adults" or "tried as adults" or "sentenced as adults" in connection with some alleged crime, yet never do we hear of people being legally "allowed to drink as an adult", "allowed to vote as an adult", etc. I hope we can agree that is a double standard, and that it ought to be corrected by some means.
The means I propose is that anyone who is legally independent be treated as an adult, and *if* while being legally accorded the rights of an adult a person breaks a just law, *then* he or she should face the legal consequences an adult would face. In other words, legal consequences are based on rights, not the other way around.
Someone who is legally *dependent*, on the ...
Yes, that would be inconsistent, however that is not an accurate description of my position. Young people who are legally dependent are dependents of their parents or guardians, not government (unless they are in a state-run orphanage or something). I'm *not* saying don't hold them accountable for misdeeds. I'm saying put the power to hold legal dependents accountable where it belongs -- in the hands of those upon whom they are dependent.
The current system often has people under 18 being "charged as adults" or "tried as adults" or "sentenced as adults" in connection with some alleged crime, yet never do we hear of people being legally "allowed to drink as an adult", "allowed to vote as an adult", etc. I hope we can agree that is a double standard, and that it ought to be corrected by some means.
The means I propose is that anyone who is legally independent be treated as an adult, and *if* while being legally accorded the rights of an adult a person breaks a just law, *then* he or she should face the legal consequences an adult would face. In other words, legal consequences are based on rights, not the other way around.
Someone who is legally *dependent*, on the other hand, should be legally bound to obey his or her parents unless he/she takes steps to become legally independent, because if he or she violates someone else's rights, the parents should bear the legal responsibility.
I addressed what you call a double standard. The double standard I see is those who want to be treated like adults and those who want to allow those underage to do things like adults are the first one to scream about the underage one being held accountable like adults when they do something wrong. To use your example, I hear things to the effect of "let them drink at 15 if their parents allow them to do so" yet when they drink, drive, and kill an innocent person, I hear from the advocates of letting them drink at 15 things to the effect of "you can't try them as an adult, they're just kids who made a mistake". Which one is it?
Problem with your second suggestion is, other than the inconsistency issue I provided, is that some parents are as bad as their kids when it comes to being irresponsible and holding them accountable. Perhaps that's why the kids are that way. If it affects only their kids, it's one thing what they do but if their kids do something that affects someone else, it's not up to the parents, it's up to the law.
Yes, some parents are as bad as their kids when it comes to being irresponsible -- and some governments are even worse. I'd rather take my chances with a few bad parents in the barrel than risk a police state because people trusted politicians with too much power. You may think "How is this one law going to turn the U.S. into a police state?" and you're right, in a sense -- whatever one single law you might have in mind *probably* won't do it -- but every additional bit of power they accumulate brings it that much closer.
If the statistics of people killed by teens drinking and driving came anywhere close to the statistics of people killed by "their own" governments committing democide, I might be more inclined to agree with you. But they don't.
Interesting how the states effected by this most are the ones with the most Electoral votes. Coincidence?
Even these countries have better voting requirements than USA
TC TFYR