bingo.
Printable View
bingo.
Ahhhhhhhhhh gotcha [img]wink.gif[/img]
CYA
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Originally posted by shatzy:
let me put it to you like this....
what if EVERYONE knew that a single mother living
in arkansas can get:
#1 -- her entire pregnancy, plus the last 3 months BEFORE she was pregnant...paid off completely....
#2 -- all hospital/clinic expenses (shots et al)
paid for one year after the child is born
#3 -- $800 a month living expenses paid in the
form of a check.
#4 -- $400 a month foodstamps
#5 -- $250 a month WIC
#6 -- assuming the single mother also worked and
made less than $17,000 a year (which she would)...
she would also receive $4000 in a fat tax refund
now level with me, cya... if everyone knew that...
don't you think most everyone would hop on that
wagon?
therefore... its best to look down on them... they are trash.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'd try for a while, but i think i'd get bored.
Oh wait, only single mothers [img]frown.gif[/img]
please explain your statement...if you would? [img]redface.gif[/img]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Originally posted by shatzy:
i see your point but again, the issue about the
crime thing didn't happen because the age limit
was changed... it was an issue on guns.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly my point... well side point anyhow. I see limits as they are now and hear talk of them going up or down who knows.. but will it have the result they are looking to get.
CYA
well... one of the biggest problems in the legal
system (imo) is that there are billions of
subordinate laws built on top of already existing
laws... these subordinate laws are established
to compensate for the brevity and/or other areas
not forseen or covered by the already existing
laws.
thats a real problem to me.
why?
well...i think its absurd to compensate for an
established law by passing a subordinate law
because it adds complexity (and therefore confusion)
to something that should be clear cut from the
start.
for example (EXTREMELY EXAGGERATED) :
(foundational law)
a person can own/carry a handgun.
(subordinate laws)
a person can own/carry a handgun except X, Y, Z etc.
X, Y, Z cannot own/carry a handgun... but can
opt for a rifle.
persons X, Y, Z can opt for a rifle unless... A, B, C
etc etc etc etc....
i realize that this is done in order to blanket
all possible situations that may arise from the
already established law. but doing so creates
such a mass of confusion and semantics that
loop-holes are not only much more prevailent...
but an obvious side-effect.
its an unending loop. you cannot defeat this
problem without resorting to more subordinate
laws.
i also think its important to consider the reasons
behind a current legality because society will
change. now, i realize that this statement opens
up a pandora's box of hypotheticals and established
cases where it doesn't.... but i think that
progression of the human condition, by way of
morality and emotional entrapment, will surely
evolve to a higher, better, and more reasonable
solution.
ok... that was an optimistic lie.
one can claim that the erradication of the
slave laws opened to a brighter future for
the oppressed and yadda yadda yadda....
but we all know thats simply not true.
the only thing it did was create a more diverse
and more calculative way to enslave and oppress
others. its on another level.
you could say that we should consider the foundations
of laws in the effects to change them... and
so it does. but it is not a change for the
better, as we are so deluded into thinking.
it is a change for the more pragmatic.
cya- does it matter what age limit there might be on anything?
is your point that if the age limits were lowered there might be a significant change in...(what?)
just asking...
dave
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Originally posted by Father Dave:
cya- does it matter what age limit there might be on anything?
is your point that if the age limits were lowered there might be a significant change in...(what?)
just asking...
dave</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was just proposing a hypothetical situation from my observation with current events. We have 18 yrs in a war where they could die but if they screwed their 16 yr old girl friend back after chugging a brew before they left for war they could go to jail. Certain situation like that. So on one hand one would say they will do it either way why not make it legal for those who choose to do so responible and just punish those who abuse it more affectivly.
On the other hand I see pregnant 14 yr old walking around with fathers of the kid who are no more then 15 and wondering WOW I hope they dont drink. Maybe we should raise the bar "legal age to do anything" in the hopes of saving someone who may choose to NOT do something just because there is a law.
Perfect example.. the seatbelt or helmet law? Did they change anything??
Where do I stand on this topic? Unlike most started here in the forum I am netural waiting for good replies that may help sway me one way or the other. And there have been many.
CYA
[img]eek.gif[/img]
Courtisy of the Mountain Mail ONLINE:
Laws will be strictly enforced
Dear Editor:
The weather is warming, school?s almost out, and summertime activities are just around the corner.
Traditionally, one of those summertime activities has been ?woodsies? when the kids gather outside in the woods to party.
That, in itself, is not a problem, but a problem starts when alcohol and/or drugs are introduced into the picture and our young people succumb to the temptation.
Because of past incidents with situations like these, the Chaffee County Sheriff?s Office, working in conjunction with officers from the Bureau of Land Management, will be monitoring these parties more closely this year.
Underage drinkers, people supplying alcohol to those who are underage, or anyone found to be in possession of drugs will be arrested and dealt with according to the law.
What does that entail? Well, if you are found to be drinking underage, you will be summoned into court to answer to a judge who will most likely take your money via a fine and may assign you to do work in the form of community service.
You will be fingerprinted and your picture, or ?mug shot,? will be taken at the sheriff?s office. You will be introduced into ?the system? as a law violator.
Your parents will be called to the sheriff?s office to take possession of you, return you home, and they will be told all the details of why you are there.
If you?re providing alcohol to underage drinkers, you could get a fine, community service and some jail time to boot. And, of course, drug possession carries all the penalties that go along with that kind of crime.
Why the hard line stance? Simple. We at the Chaffee County Sheriff?s Office consider our area youth to be very important people.
The vast majority of them are great kids and young adults. There are, however, a few who seem to go out of their way to try and corrupt that by introducing alcohol and drugs and encouraging others to participate.
In the past couple of years some of the problems that have stemmed from these affairs have been fires getting out of control, areas strewn and littered with trash, kids injured in fights, law enforcement officers being attacked, alcohol poisoning, drug overdoses, vandalism, sexual assaults and people injured in car accidents as a result of drunk driving.
Because of these acts, the laws already mentioned will be more stringently enforced starting this year with regards to these parties.
Our officers do not work on a commission basis, so the fewer young people they have to arrest, the happier we will all be.
The sheriff?s office is here to serve and protect everyone in this community, so lets work together to make this a happy, safe summer, and thank you for your help and cooperation.
Lt. Keith Pinkston,
patrol and investigations
supervisor,
Chaffee County Sheriff?s Office
--- it is article like these or ideas that shape public opinion as to weather or not laws need to be changed or age limits imposed or raised.
I am seeing from both sides of spectrum. Kids will do what kids will do yet in the other hand in appointing law enforment officals to make sure that the laws we have in place are used to try to make the public safer in the area of ... sure they are drinking way out of the way, not hurting anyone and no one knows the differance... but what if one of them decided to drive home after such a party then what happens?
It could be argued that weather a law was in place that said this person had to be 21 or 50 to drink it wouldn't make any difference in the fact that the person chose not to abide by the law and would do so no matter the limit.
Though how many of you wear your seat belt or try NOT to speed thru a school zone because of fear of the law and what could happen outside of running some little kid over? So do LAWS do what they are intended to do and would raising the limited age on items decrease the number of people who chose to dis-reguard them. Or would lowering the limits now in place allow people to make a more conscious effort in self governing what they chose to do??
Any more thoughts?
CYA
<font color="#c0c0c0" size="1">[ May 09, 2003 10:12 PM: Message edited by: Cyalaytr ]</font>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">
I am seeing from both sides of spectrum. Kids will do what kids will do yet in the other hand in appointing law enforment officals to make sure that the laws we have in place are used to try to make the public safer in the area of ... sure they are drinking way out of the way, not hurting anyone and no one knows the differance... but what if one of them decided to drive home after such a party then what happens?
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
what if i decide to use some nitrate and oil, mix it all together and bring the resulting stuff to say... a train station and set it off?
What if's are easy, kids aren't the only ones who drive when they're drunk, many adults do it too.
The crime is not the result of the alcohol, but the person, and if that person chooses to do so, that is his fault, the alcohol cannot be blamed.
It's sort of wierd, how in the article you posted alcohol is viewed as the source of corruption in these kids, while alcohol actually removes bounds, making you (in my opinion) more you, in a way.